Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her family with suitable temporary accommodation under its homelessness duties. The Council accepted fault when it investigated Miss X’s complaint, in that it failed to consider suitability of accommodation and took too long to respond to the complaint. The Council apologised and paid a financial remedy. After our investigation, it agreed to offer a further financial remedy for the injustice caused. It will also issue staff reminders and decide any changes needed to its processes to avoid the same faults in future.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to provide her and her children with suitable temporary accommodation under its homelessness duties in 2023 and 2024. She says the Council:
• provided accommodation that was not suitable for her disabled child’s needs, and was in disrepair with damp and mould issues;
• delayed in providing keys so she could access the building, and appliances so she could store food and cook;
• delayed in resolving issues she reported with disrepair, damp, and mould;
• did not properly consider all her requests for it to review the suitability of the accommodation; and
• delayed in responding to her complaint about these issues.
2. Because of this Miss X says the family experienced distress due to living in unsuitable accommodation. She also says delays in responding to her complaint caused avoidable time and trouble.
3. Miss X wants the Council to provide a financial remedy for the time she spent living in unsuitable accommodation, further to the remedy it already offered. She also wants the Council to review how it considers the suitability of accommodation it offers to families with disabled children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended). When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services, we treat actions taken by or on behalf of that organisation as actions taken on behalf of the council and in the exercise of the council’s functions.
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
9. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
10. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council, and relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness law and guidance

13. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.

The main housing duty and temporary accommodation

14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
15. Examples of applicants in priority need include people with dependent children, pregnant women, and people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability.
16. The accommodation a council provides until it can end the main housing duty is called temporary accommodation.

Suitability of accommodation

17. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
18. In deciding whether accommodation is suitable, authorities must have regard to
• the space and arrangement of the accommodation;
• the state of repair and condition of the accommodation;
• location, including ease of access to established employment, schools and specialist health care; and
• the specific needs of the applicant and any household members due to a medical condition or disability.
19. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified. (Elkundi, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601)
20. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable has a statutory right to ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability within 21 days of being notified of the decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 202).
21. Applicants can also ask a council to reconsider its decision about the suitability of temporary accommodation at any time. This might be necessary, for example, if there is a change in the applicant’s circumstances. This new decision is open to review under section 202, with a new 21-day timescale. (R(B) v Redbridge LBC m[2019] EWHC 250 (Admin))
22. Councils must complete reviews of suitability of temporary accommodation within eight weeks of the date of the review request. The review period can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
23. If a council’s review decides temporary accommodation is unsuitable, it must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
24. Councils must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

What happened

25. The Council accepted the main housing duty to Miss X in 2022. She was living with her two children who both have disabilities. In May 2023, the Council offered Miss X temporary accommodation. She moved into Accommodation A on 4 May 2023.
26. In August 2023, Miss X asked the Council to review the suitability of Accommodation A. She said:
• the Council had agreed it should only offer Miss X properties on the ground or first floor due to her children’s disabilities. However, Accommodation A was on the second floor with six sets of stairs and no lift access; and
• the balcony and windows did not have safety locks so her children could open these which was dangerous due to the height. The cooker was also unsafe.
27. In September 2023 the Council offered Miss X a new property, Accommodation B. She moved in on 11 September 2023. When Miss X moved in, she had already asked the Council to review the suitability of Accommodation B. She said:
• the Council had agreed the family needed a three-bedroom property because her children needed separate rooms due to their disabilities. However, Accommodation B only had two bedrooms and two reception rooms, and the room sizes were too small for her children’s needs; and
• stairs outside the property were narrow and unsafe given her children’s needs, and the garden was not secure.
28. Six weeks later in October 2023, the Council completed its review. It said it had spoken to Miss X on the phone who had agreed Accommodation B was suitable although there were some disrepair issues she had reported to the third-party property management company. The Council said it would therefore close the review.
29. In January 2024, Miss X complained to the Council about how it handled her placement at Accommodation A. She said:
• Accommodation A was never suitable for the family because it was a second-floor property so the Council should never have offered it;
• after she moved in the Council did not provide a key for the outside building entrance for two weeks. She had to rely on neighbours to let her in, waiting outside with her children; and
• after she moved in the Council did not provide an oven, hob, or fridge freezer for six weeks. She could not store and prepare food for her family and lost money on takeaway meals.
30. In February 2024, Miss X asked for a second suitability review of Accommodation B. She said:
• there were various disrepair issues in the property including a leak in the roof, birds nesting in the roof, and leaking toilet; and
• (as with the previous review request), the room sizes were too small for her children’s needs and stairs outside the property were unsafe.
31. In June 2024, the Council completed its review. It said Miss X had confirmed all disrepair issues were now resolved, and it did not consider Accommodation B unsuitable on any of the other grounds she raised. It told Miss X how to appeal to the county court if she disagreed with the decision.
32. In August 2024, seven months after Miss X complained, the Council issued its Stage 1 complaint response. It had written this response in March but accepts it failed to send this to Miss X because it confused her with another complainant. The Stage 1 response said:
• the Council accepted the two-week wait for an outside door key to Accommodation A was unacceptable and apologised for this; and
• the failure to provide kitchen appliances until six weeks after Miss X moved in was due to a miscommunication by third-party contractors. It had taken steps to prevent similar issues in future.
33. In September 2024, Miss X escalated her complaint to Stage 2. She said:
• the Council took too long to respond to the complaint at Stage 1;
• it had not addressed her complaint that it should never have offered Accommodation A due to the number of stairs; and
• she had received a separate email from the Council offering £100 compensation, but the Council had not mentioned this in the Stage 1 response, and she had not received any money.
34. The Council issued its final response to Miss X’s complaint in November 2024. The Council:
• accepted Accommodation A was never suitable for the family. It said they were now in a more suitable property since September 2023;
• accepted it confused Miss X with another complainant;
• offered a financial remedy of £275. This was £100 for placing the family in an unsuitable second-floor property, £100 for failing to provide keys, £25 for failing to contact Miss X to discuss her complaint, and £50 for the time and trouble she spent chasing her complaint; and
• said the separate contact Miss X had received about £100 compensation was from the Council’s third-party contractor which delivers kitchen appliances, for the six-week delay. It was not from the Council.
35. Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in late-2024. She told us:
• the Council had paid her the £275 offered in its complaint response; and
• she had not been offered any payment from a third-party contractor for the delayed kitchen appliances and did not know what the Council was referring to.
36. After Miss X came to the Ombudsman she asked for a third suitability review of Accommodation B in January 2025. The Council responded in March 2025 and decided the property was no longer suitable because the landlord was unwilling to fix a leak in the roof which had caused damp and mould. It offered Miss X new temporary accommodation, and the family moved out of Accommodation B in late-March 2025.

What I have and have not investigated

37. The law says we cannot investigate events which happened more than twelve months before somebody complained to us, unless we decide there are good reasons it took them longer to complain. Miss X came to the Ombudsman in November 2024, so we would usually only look at what happened after November 2023. I decided there were good reasons to investigate what happened from the point the Council placed Miss X in Accommodation A in May 2023. The Council delayed in responding to Miss X’s complaint by ten months, which in turn delayed her coming to the Ombudsman.
38. Miss X made another suitability review request for Accommodation B in January 2025, after she came to the Ombudsman. She had also provided an occupational therapy (OT) report as evidence of unsuitability in November 2024, two days before the Council’s final complaint response. I have not investigated how the Council considered the November OT report and January suitability review. These are new issues which were not part of Miss X’s complaint to the Council, and it must have reasonable opportunity to respond before we consider it. If Miss X is dissatisfied with how the Council considered the OT report or carried out the recent review, she would need to make a new complaint to the Council. She could then make a new complaint to us if she is dissatisfied with the Council’s response.

My findings

Keys for Accommodation A

39. The Council accepted it failed to provide Miss X an outside door key for Accommodation A for two weeks. This was fault. It paid Miss X £100 to recognise the injustice caused. I consider this suitable and would not recommend a further remedy.

Kitchen appliances for Accommodation A

40. Miss X went without kitchen appliances for six weeks. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it was not at fault because the delay was caused by its third-party contractor. It therefore told Miss X to claim compensation from the third-party instead.
41. I disagree with the Council’s position. As explained at paragraph 5, where the Council contracts out its services, it remains responsible for those services. It is the Council's responsibility to provide suitable accommodation where it accepts a homelessness duty. Accommodation without adequate facilities to store and prepare food is not suitable for a family with children. It was the Council’s responsibility to ensure the accommodation was suitable from the point Miss X moved in. Its failure to do so was fault. I have taken this issue into account below in considering the suitability of Accommodation A further.

Suitability of Accommodation A

42. All accommodation provided by the Council to homeless applicants must be suitable for the needs of the specific household. The Council’s records showed it had already decided before it offered Miss X Accommodation A that it should only offer her properties on the ground or first floor. When Miss X asked the Council to review the suitability of Accommodation A, it accepted it had not properly considered this when it made the offer, and that a second-floor property was not suitable. It also accepted it was at fault for this in its Stage 2 complaint response. If the Council had properly considered suitability before it offered Accommodation A, it is clear it would have found the property was not suitable from the start.
43. We will not usually investigate complaints about temporary accommodation where the complainant has a statutory right of review and then appeal to court on a point of law. We may decide to investigate if there was a good reason the complainant could not appeal. The Council accepted Accommodation A was unsuitable so did not direct Miss X to appeal to court and instead moved her to a new property. Therefore, I would not expect Miss X to have appealed.
44. The Council’s failure to properly consider suitability meant the family lived in unsuitable accommodation for four months from May to September 2023. The Council offered Miss X a payment of £100 for placing the family in an unsuitable second-floor property. This is not suitable in line with our guidance on remedies. This says where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation, we are likely to recommend a monthly payment of between £150 and £350. Considering Miss X’s circumstances, that her children have disabilities and also experienced injustice, and the impact this had on her family, I decided the financial remedy should be:
• £350 per month for the first 1.5 months, when the family did not have kitchen appliances so could not store or prepare food; and
• £250 per month for the next 2.5 months once the kitchen appliances were in place.

Suitability of Accommodation B and disrepair, damp, and mould

45. After Miss X brought this complaint to us, the Council decided Accommodation B was no longer suitable for the family. It said this was because the landlord was unwilling to fix a leak in the roof which had caused damp and mould. Miss X said the Council delayed in resolving the disrepair issues she reported with the roof and should have decided the property was unsuitable due to this issue sooner.
46. I considered the key events in relation to Miss X’s reports of issues with the roof, as follows.
• September to October 2023 – First suitability review for Accommodation B. Miss X did not mention issues with the roof, or damp and mould. She then agreed the accommodation was suitable and the Council could close the review.
• January 2024 – Stage 1 complaint about issues with Accommodation A. Miss X did not mention any issues with Accommodation B.
• February 2024 – Second suitability review request for Accommodation B. Miss X raised the leaking roof as one of her grounds for seeking review. The reviewer sent this to the relevant team to ask for repairs to be completed.
• March 2024 – While communicating with the reviewer, Miss X said the leak in the roof was now fixed (although the issue of birds nesting in the roof space took longer to fix).
• June 2024 – Outcome for second suitability review for Accommodation B. The Council said Miss X had confirmed all disrepair issues were now resolved and told her how to appeal. Miss X did not dispute this or appeal the outcome.
• September to November 2024 – Miss X reported various disrepair issues in Accommodation B, including “cracks in the ceiling”. In November she then said the leak in the roof had returned and got worse.
• January 2025 (after Miss X came to us) – Third suitability review request for Accommodation B. Miss X said the leak in the roof had not been resolved since her report in November 2024, had now caused damp, and this was one of her grounds for review.
• March 2025 – The Council decided Accommodation B was no longer suitable because the landlord was unwilling to fix the leaking roof which had caused damp and mould. It moved the family to new temporary accommodation.
47. Miss X did not mention issues with the roof, or damp and mould in her first review request. Therefore, I would not expect the Council to have considered it. Miss X then agreed the accommodation was suitable and the Council could close the review. There was no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the first review request.
48. During the second review request, Miss X told the Council the leaking roof had been fixed. I recognise the issue returned later, after the review. However, I find no fault in how the Council considered the information available to it at the time. There was no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the second review request, other than that it delayed the outcome by four weeks. However, this delay did not affect the outcome of the review. It also did not cause Miss X a significant injustice. The reviewer only delayed this to allow her opportunity to provide more evidence, and ultimately her housing situation remained the same after the review outcome.
49. Also, when the Council closed the second review request, it told Miss X how to appeal to the county court if she disagreed with the decision. Miss X did not appeal, and I did not find any good reasons she could not appeal.
50. In the third review the Council decided to move the family out of the property because the leaking roof could not be resolved. As explained at paragraph 38, I have not investigated how the Council made this third decision.
51. I found no fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s reports about the roof, or made its decisions about suitability in October 2023 and June 2024, based on the information available to it at the time.

Complaint delays

52. The Council’s complaints’ procedure says complaints will take no longer than twelve weeks from start to end. It took ten months to respond to Miss X’s complaint because of the significant delays at Stage 1. The Council accepted it was at fault because it confused Miss X with another complainant and took too long to respond to her complaint.
53. Our guidance on remedies says where a complainant has been caused avoidable time and trouble due to faults in complaint handling, we usually recommend a financial remedy of up to £500.
54. The Council paid Miss X £75 to recognise the injustice caused by poor complaint handling. This was £25 for failing to contact her to discuss her complaint, and £50 for the time and trouble she spent chasing her complaint. I decided the Council should go further to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Action

55. Within one month of our final decision the Council will pay Ms X a total of £1,175, comprising of:
• £1,150 to recognise the four months Miss X’s family spent in Accommodation A, minus the £100 the Council already paid for this in responding to the complaint. This leaves £1,050; and
• £200 to recognise the avoidable time and trouble caused to Miss X by the Council’s faults in complaint handling, minus the £75 the Council already paid for this in responding to the complaint. This leaves £125.
56. Within three months of our final decision the Council will:
1. remind relevant staff of the need to check medical recommendations on file when making an offer of temporary accommodation to a homeless applicant. The Council must ensure any accommodation offered is in line with any recorded needs based on medical conditions or disabilities;
2. decide what actions it needs to take to change its processes or train staff, to ensure it checks temporary accommodation already has adequate facilities to store and prepare food before it moves in a family with children; and
3. review how it confused Miss X with another complainant. It will decide what actions it needs to take to change its processes or train staff to prevent this in future cases.
57. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

58. I find fault causing injustice. The Council accepted fault when it investigated Miss X’s complaint and offered a remedy for the injustice caused. After our investigation it agreed to further actions I recommended it should take to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman