Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s handling of her concerns about the suitability of her temporary accommodation and advice she received. She said this has impacted her and her family, and they remain in unsuitable accommodation. We found the Council at fault for failing to complete suitability reviews, share its decisions, and provide Ms C with her appeal rights. It remains at fault as Ms C’s family remains in the accommodation the Council has since agreed is unsuitable. The Council will apologise to Ms C and make payment to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused, and continues to cause, her family.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms C, complained about the Council’s handling of her family’s housing situation. She said:
• she has been moved between several temporary accommodations over a number of years which has caused upset and frustrations;
• she had been mis-advised by the Council she had to leave her temporary accommodation to apply for homelessness in another area;
• her temporary accommodation is unsuitable for the family, but the Council failed to properly consider her suitability review request and treat the family with priority; and
• the Council has since agreed her accommodation is unsuitable, but this has not led to a move to another accommodation which meets the family’s identified needs.
2. Mrs C said, as a result, her family experienced, and continues to, experience distress and uncertainty which is impacting their health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I have investigated Ms C’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her family’s housing situation from Autumn 2023 to December 2024. While this is more than 12 months before she brought her complaint to our attention and parts of her complaint is late, I have found it appropriate to exercise my discretion to consider this period. This is because she initially raised a complaint and concerns with the Council in Spring 2024 and has pursued her concerns since.
7. I have not investigated Ms C’s concerns about the Council’s handling of her family’s housing situation before Autumn 2023, as this part of her complaint is late and Ms C could have brought earlier concerns to our attention sooner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms C and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Ms C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

10. 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.
11. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
12. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). This is called the main housing duty. But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Suitability and review rights

14. 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)
15. 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)
16. Councils must complete reviews of the suitability of accommodation within eight weeks of the date of the review request. This period can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.

Transfers between local housing authorities

17. There are circumstances when a homelessness applicant who is owed a main housing duty, may be transferred to another local housing authority. To be eligible for a referral:
• neither the applicant, or any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with them, has a local connection with the authority to whom the application was made, but has a local connection of that other authority; or
• the applicant was on a previous application made to the receiving housing authority, placed in the area of the authority where the existing application was made. (Housing Act 1996, section 198)

What happened

18. There has been extensive correspondence between Ms C and those supporting her and the Council in relation to this complaint. In this section of the statement I summarise key events, but I do not refer to every single contact and communication.
19. Ms C and her family has been found eligible for homelessness assistance by the Council over several years and has been placed in a number of temporary accommodations. They were placed in their current temporary accommodation in late 2022, which was an out of borough placement in a high-rise lifted property.
20. In 2023 Ms C asked the Council for more suitable accommodation as the temporary accommodation was away from family and friends and she wanted a secure tenancy. She also said there were ongoing issues with lifts in the property and some internal steps which made the accommodation unsuitable due to needs of her child.
21. In Autumn 2023 Ms C told the Council she may apply for homelessness with the local Council her temporary accommodation was in. The Council told advised her, if she did so, she would have to withdraw her application with it and she would not be able to continue to live in her temporary accommodation.
22. Ms C asked an advocate for support, who made enquiries with the Council. In March 2024, when the advocate had not received a response. He made a complaint on Ms C’s behalf. This related to:
• why the Council had advised Ms C she would have to leave her temporary accommodation if she submitted a homelessness application to the local Council; and
• Ms C’s temporary accommodation was unsuitable for the family due to being a lifted high rise and the lifts not always working, steps inside the property, and it was located away from her support network in the Council’s area.
23. In April 2024 Ms C told the Council she disagreed with the medical assessment which had previously taken place. The Council arranged for a new assessment, which it said took place in May 2024. This said it found the property was suitable, however, no records are available for the assessment.
24. Ms C provided the Council with a GP letter which set out the family’s medical needs and how the temporary accommodation impacted these. It also explained one of Ms C’s children would be attending school in the local area and any new accommodation should be in the same area as the temporary accommodation.
25. Shortly after, Ms C also informed the Council her landlord had requested her accommodation back and she would become homeless again.
26. In July 2024 the Council provided its response to Ms C’s complaint. It partly upheld her complaint as it should have provided her with an update sooner. It explained:
• it had accepted a full housing duty to the family in 2021 and shared the decision;
• the temporary accommodation had been found suitable in 2022 and again in May 2024 with no property recommendations;
• any lift issues should be reported to the managing agent of the property; and
• the family had been placed on its transfer list due to the landlord requesting the property back. It would contact her when a suitable property was found.
27. In July 2024 Ms C submitted a suitability review request to the Council and provided further supporting documents. The Council acknowledged her request and said it would complete a review.
28. In August 2024 Ms C asked the Council to escalate her complaint. She explained medical professionals involved with the family all agreed the temporary accommodation was unsuitable. She explained the challenges the family faced.
29. Ms C and her advocate sent further information to the Council in Autumn 2024 to explain the family’s needs and challenges. The Council acknowledged these and said it would consider this in the suitability review.
30. In October 2024 the Council’s file shows it closed Ms C’s suitability review request as she was already placed on its transfer list on the ground the landlord wanted the property back.
31. In its final complaint response, the Council apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint, but it did not uphold her complaint. It said the temporary accommodation had been found suitable following the May 2024 medical assessment, lifts had been inspected by the managing agent, and the family was on its transfer list.
32. Ms C told the Council she remained unhappy, and her advocate asked the Council for its response to the suitability review request.
33. In late 2024, the Council told Ms C’s advocate its officer had been on leave and again asked for the representations made for the review. It would then review and share its decision. Ms C’s advocate shared the information the same day.
34. The following day the Council shared its suitability review decision with Ms C. It found the temporary accommodation was not suitable due to overcrowding and the characteristics of the property’s impact on the family’s medical needs. The location of the property was not found unsuitable. It accepted it should have provided the outcome of the review sooner, and apologised. It explained she:
• may be moved to another temporary accommodation and had been placed on its transfer list;
• can continue to bid on its housing register, but any social housing offer would only be within its area; and
• could request a review of its suitability decision.
35. Ms C asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint, she also sought support from another advocate which asked the Council for compensation. The Council did not respond to this request as the Ombudsman was involved.
36. Following my enquiries to the Council, it explained:
• it did not complete a suitability review in Autumn 2023 as there was a backlog. It has since recruited staff and the backlog continues to reduce despite ongoing pressures on its service;
• it found Ms C’s temporary accommodation unsuitable following her request in July 2024 and before the late 2024 decision. However, the review decision was not issued due to a backlog. It had shared its unchanged December 2024 decision with review rights;
• it has recruited extra complaints handling staff and changed its process to resolve complaints sooner; and
• Ms C’s family remains in the temporary accommodation. They are on its transfer list and no offers has been made, although she has refused referrals for private sector options. The reason the family has not yet been moved is due to a shortage of available accommodations.

Analysis and findings

Suitability

37. The evidence shows Ms C, and her advocate, asked the Council for help as she believed her accommodation was unsuitable at least from Autumn 2023. The Council has agreed it did not carry out a suitability review at the time due to backlogs in its service. I therefore found the Council at fault for its failure to carry out a suitability review at the time.
38. Ms C and her advocate continued to raise concerns about the suitability of her accommodation, including in her early 2024 complaint and Summer 2024. While it appears the Council completed some assessment and considerations in to her family’s circumstances, a suitability review was not completed and shared with her with her appeal rights. This was fault.
39. It was first in late 2024 when the Council completed the suitability review Ms C and her advocate had again requested in Summer 2024. This found her accommodation was unsuitable.
40. I found the Council failed to adhere to its duties to complete a suitability review of Ms C’s temporary accommodation, caused delays in the process, and failed to share its decisions with her from August 2023 to December 2024.
41. In addition, based on the evidence Ms C presented and the family’s circumstances, on balance, I am satisfied had the Council carried out the suitability review and properly considered the family’s circumstances, it would have reached the December 2024 decision at the time.
42. In reaching my view, I was conscious the circumstances around Ms C’s property, family composition, and health issues remained largely unchanged throughout the period.
43. I understand Ms C has been on the Council’s transfer list since she informed the Council in Summer 2024 her landlord wanted the property back. This is irrelevant for my decision as the Council’s duty to find Ms C’s family a suitable accommodation was immediate. However, I acknowledge the Council’s challenges due to the lack of available properties in and around its area.
44. Our guidance on remedies says where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation during what would inevitably have been a stressful period in their life, our recommendation for financial redress is likely to be in the range of £150 to £350 a month. In this case Ms C spent 15 months in unsuitable accommodation, which is also ongoing as no offer has yet been made. This is considered from the start of my investigation from August 2023.
45. When coming to a suitable figure, I considered the Council finding of the unsuitability of Ms C’s property which included overcrowding and access issues, but the location was not found to be unsuitable. Including the impact this had, and continues to have, on Ms C and her family. I also had regard to that lift issues were not within the Council’s control.

The Council’s advice to Ms C

46. I have considered the advice the Council provided to Ms C when it said she would have to close her homeless application with the Council and leave the temporary accommodation if she applied to another local authority for homelessness.
47. I have not found the Council at fault for providing incorrect advice. This is because the Council had already accepted its housing duties towards her and placed her in temporary accommodation. Any concerns about the suitability of the property were to be dealt with by the Council under a suitability review.
48. As Ms C’s wishes to be housed by the neighbouring local authority, she had the right to ask the neighbouring authority for homelessness assistance or for the Council to make a referral. However, based on the evidence available, I am not satisfied Ms C was eligible for a referral in line with the criteria set out in Section 198 of the Housing Act 1996.
49. However, Ms C and her advocate asked the Council to explain its advice and the reasons for her having to close her homelessness application with it. I have not seen evidence this was responded to or explained to her at any stage, which was fault. I am satisfied this caused her some uncertainty.

Communication and complaints handling

50. The Council has acknowledged it did not respond or communicate with Ms C or her advocate as it should have during parts of my investigation period.
51. I found this included its failure to, or delays to, respond to her request to explain its advice, and her requests for suitability reviews and provide information and decisions around this, and communication around a referral for its private sector service.
52. In addition, I found fault in the Council’s complaints handling, which was significantly delayed for both stages of its complaints process, and failed to properly address and recognise its failures to the suitability review.
53. I am satisfied the Council poor communication and responses to Ms C caused her some distress and uncertainty.

Service improvements

54. I have not made any service improvement recommendations on this case. This is because we have investigated several complaints against the Council relating to its handling of suitability reviews and complaints handling for the same period as my investigation.
55. The Council has as a result of our recommendations recruited more staff, made process changes, issued staff reminders, and shared evidence it has reduced the backlog of suitability reviews and complaints.

Back to top

Action

56. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Ms C, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Ms C to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused her and her family;

We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.

2. pay Ms C a symbolic payment of £300 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty she experienced as a result of the Council’s poor communication and complaints handling; and
3. pay Ms C £2,250 to acknowledge the distress and hardship caused to Ms C and her family for the time spent in unsuitable accommodation. I have calculated this at £150 per month up December 2024;
4. Pay Ms C £150 per month from January 2025 until Ms C and her family have been moved to suitable temporary or permanent accommodation, or when the Council has discharged its duty following an offer of what it deems suitable accommodation. The remedy is payable for up to six months after the date of this decision.

In total the Council should pay Ms F £2,550, and £150 per month as set out in remedy 52(d).

5.  
6.  
7.  
8.  
5. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

58. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council which caused, and continues to cause, Ms C and her family an injustice. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the impact it faults had.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman