Summary: Miss B complained the Council placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation and did not consider her request for a suitability review. The Council was at fault for its failure to treat Miss B’s contact as a trigger for a new suitability decision to be made; and for its delay in actioning Miss B’s change of circumstances and new medical information. Because of the fault, Miss B suffered distress and frustration, and she remained living in unsuitable accommodation with her young children for longer than they should have. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B, make a symbolic payment, and issue staff briefings.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains the Council placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation and failed to properly consider her request for a review of suitability.
2. Miss B says the Council’s actions caused her emotional and mental distress, and meant she remained living in dangerous conditions with her two young children.
3. She would like the Council to move her to a property that is suitable for her and her family’s needs.

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. 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.
6. 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated matters in this case from July 2023, when the Council placed Miss B in the accommodation in question.
8. I have not investigated matters in this case relating to the new accommodation the Council offered Miss B in February 2025 and the suitability of it. This is because Miss B asked for a suitability review of the accommodation, and the Council decided it was suitable. The courts are the final stage in the process to challenge homelessness decisions. Miss B could have gone to court for this matter.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I read Miss B’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the telephone.
10. I considered evidence provided by Miss B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Miss B 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

Temporary accommodation

12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Suitability of accommodation

13. 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. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
14. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council 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)

Review rights

15. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions made by the Council, including the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Back to top

What happened

16. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not cover everything that has happened in this case.
17. Miss B moved into the accommodation in early July 2023.
18. In October 2024, Miss B told the Council she was urgently requesting it move her to suitable accommodation, due to the unsafe conditions she was living in at the time. She told it:
• She was living in a one-room accommodation with her two young children.
• There was unsafe access to the kitchen due to a large step which was unsafe for her children.
• The bathroom was shared with other residents and was located outside of her room. Miss B raised concerns with the Council about incidents where strangers had entered her room, mistaking it for their own. She told the Council due to these safety concerns; she was unable to use the bathroom without taking the children with her for their safety. She also told it the bathroom was unhygienic and there was regularly urine on the floor.
• The heating in the accommodation was inadequate, which worsened her child’s asthma in cold temperatures.
19. In mid-November 2024, Miss B chased the Council for a response and reiterated her safety concerns. She also told the Council the shared facilities now posed a medical risk to her child as she had been diagnosed with a severe allergy in late October 2024.
20. In early December 2024, the Council sent a complaint response to Miss B. It told her:
• A temporary accommodation housing officer would contact Miss B to look into the disrepair and any other issues she had with the accommodation.
• The Council had checked the suitability assessment it completed for Miss B’s household in 2021 and there were no records of an allergy for her child, and the outcome of a medical assessment which took place in March 2024 did not detail any recommendations for an allergy. It told Miss B to send it a new medical form with information about the allergy if she wanted the Council to consider it and make a medical recommendation about her housing needs.
21. In mid-December 2024, Miss B sent the Council an updated medical form with supporting evidence of her child’s allergy. The Council also completed an occupancy check around this time. It noted the large step in the kitchen was a hazard for Miss B’s children; the heating was not fully working; and the shared bathroom facilities were not fully suitable due to the young age of the children.
22. In late January 2025, Miss B chased the Council for a response to the updated medical form she sent to it. The Council told her it had not received an updated form from her. It later told her it had missed her email with the form attached, but it would aim to get this information assessed as soon as possible.
23. After the consideration of the medical information a few days later, the Council recommended Miss B should be placed in a self-contained property only. The Council also completed a suitability assessment around this time. It decided the accommodation was unsuitable. This was because of the shared facilities and the medical recommendation that a self-contained property is necessary due to Miss B’s child’s allergy.
24. In mid-February 2025, the Council offered Miss B a different property in line with the suitability assessment. Miss B told the Council this property was also unsuitable. The Council explained why it was suitable and told her she could ask for a suitability review. Miss B asked for a suitability review. The Council decided on review that the property was suitable.

Back to top

Analysis

25. The Council did not make a decision about whether the temporary accommodation was suitable for Miss B and her children after she reported her concerns to it and requested suitable accommodation in October 2024. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me Miss B did not request a section 202 review of the suitability of the accommodation at this time in her letter. However, it was clear from the letter she was dissatisfied with the accommodation and considered it unsuitable. That should have prompted the Council to make a suitability decision. It should have then put the decision in writing to Miss B and, if it decided it was suitable, it should have notified her about her right to request a section 202 review. The Council did not do this. The failure to make a suitability decision and follow the correct decision-making process was fault. Miss B was denied the opportunity to request a section 202 suitability of accommodation review because the Council did not handle this correctly.
26. It appears the Council accepted the accommodation was unsuitable in December 2024 when it carried out an occupancy check, as it noted the shared bathroom facilities were not fully suitable due to the young age of the children. The Council later decided the accommodation was unsuitable for Miss B and advised her of this decision after it had carried out a suitability assessment in February 2025. Had the Council carried out a suitability assessment in October 2024 when it should have, on balance, given its later decision the accommodation was unsuitable, it is likely it would have decided the accommodation was unsuitable at this time. The Council’s failure to do this meant Miss B remained in the accommodation with her two young children longer than they should have, until the Council offered her different accommodation in February 2025.
27. The Council has a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review, and to respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability. Miss B sent a further letter to the Council in mid-November 2024 to reiterate her concerns, and to inform the Council the accommodation also posed a medical risk for her child who was at the time, recently diagnosed with a severe allergy. This change in circumstances also should have prompted the Council to make a suitability decision, which the Council did do. It arranged a medical assessment and suitability assessment for February 2025. But this was three months after Miss B told the Council about the change in circumstances, and two months after Miss B had returned the completed medical form to the Council. The Council’s delay in actioning this was fault, which caused distress and frustration to Miss B.
28. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
29. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred.
30. Our guidance on remedies takes the view that where someone has been deprived of suitable accommodation, we will usually recommend a payment between £150 to £350 a month. We consider each complaint on its merits and consider the impact the fault had on the person making the complaint and their family. In the circumstances of this case, I consider £150 a month to be appropriate. This has been calculated from when Miss B reported the concerns to the Council and requested suitable accommodation in October 2024 which should have triggered a suitability decision to be made by the Council, to February 2025 when the Council offered Miss B different accommodation.

Back to top

Action

31. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Miss B by the fault I have identified, the Council will take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Miss B for the distress and frustration caused to her by the identified fault, and for the time spent living in unsuitable accommodation. This apology should be in accordance with our guidance Making an effective apology.
• Pay Miss B £600 to acknowledge the injustice caused by the identified fault and time spent living in unsuitable accommodation.
32. The Council will take the following action within three months of my final decision:
• Issue a briefing to relevant staff to remind them of the Council’s duty to keep suitability under review, and recognise the types of communications from service users which should trigger the Council to carry out a review of suitability.
• Issue a briefing to relevant staff to remind them of the importance of actioning notifications of changes in circumstances and new medical information from service users in a timely manner, so as not to delay the process of making a new suitability decision.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

34. I uphold Miss B’s complaint and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman