Summary: Mrs Z complained that the Council failed to act promptly after deciding her temporary accommodation was unsuitable. We have concluded our investigation with a finding of fault. Based on the evidence, the Council delayed completing the suitability review and in offering suitable alternative accommodation and failed to address identified safety adaptations. This caused avoidable uncertainty and left Mrs Z living in unsuitable conditions for longer than necessary. The Council has accepted our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mrs Z complains the Council failed to act appropriately after deciding her temporary accommodation was unsuitable in November 2024. Through her representative (REP), she says:
1. The Council unreasonably delayed in offering alternative accommodation.
2. The temporary accommodation remained unsafe and unfit due to unresolved disrepair.
3. The financial remedy offered was inadequate.
4. The Council failed to address all issues in its complaint response.
5. The Council did not offer practical help to secure alternative housing.
2. She says these failings caused distress, anxiety, and a loss of independence and dignity. She seeks an apology, a financial remedy, suitable alternative accommodation, and staff training to prevent recurrence.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
5. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
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. This investigation concerns events from November 2024 onwards. Mrs Z previously raised a related complaint for which we issued a final decision in February 2025. That investigation covered the period up to May 2024, including the suitability of previous accommodation (Accommodation B and C), the Council’s decisions on her housing register banding, and other matters. The Ombudsman found fault and recommended a payment of £400 for the time Mrs Z remained in unsuitable accommodation at Accommodation B, alongside an apology.
8. I have not reinvestigated any issues already addressed in that earlier case. This decision considers the Council’s actions from the point it accepted, through a statutory suitability review on 6 November 2024, that Accommodation D was unsuitable for Mrs Z.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence on record from the REP as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I also spoke with the REP as part of my investigation.
10. The REP and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance and legislation

Temporary accommodation

11. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. If a council is satisfied an applicant is 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)
12. Temporary accommodation is accommodation provided to homeless applicants as part of a council’s main homelessness duty.
13. Councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
14. Council’s must assess whether accommodation is suitable for each household individually. Whether accommodation is suitable will depend on the relevant needs and circumstances of the homeless person and their household. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, 17.4 and 17.9)
15. 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
16. As the duty to provide suitable accommodation is a continuing obligation, councils must keep the issue of suitability of accommodation under review. If there is a change of circumstances the council must reconsider whether the accommodation remains suitable.
17. Certain decisions council’s make about homelessness carry a statutory right of review. The review decision the carries a right of appeal to court on a point of law.
18. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decisions including:
• their eligibility for assistance.
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness.
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan (PHP) at the prevention duty stage.
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end.
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage.
• Giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.
• 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.
19. Homeless applicants have a right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, s202)
20. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. This period can be extended but only if the applicant agrees in writing. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204)
21. The council must advise applicant 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)

Back to top

What happened

22. In May 2024, the Council placed Mrs Z in Accommodation D. She requested a suitability review in July 2024. The Council initially indicated it intended to find the accommodation suitable but later concluded, in a review decision in November 2024, that the property was not suitable due to a lack of adaptations and the landlord’s refusal to carry them out. The Council stated it would seek to rehouse Mrs Z but gave no timeframe.
23. By the end of January 2025, more than 11 weeks later, the Council had not made an alternative offer. In its Stage 2 response in January 2025, the Council acknowledged the delay, cited an acute shortage of accessible accommodation, and offered £450 as a gesture of goodwill. It also confirmed some disrepair works had been completed but noted anti-slip bathroom flooring remained outstanding.
24. The REP confirmed that, as of July 2025, the flooring had not yet been fitted, and the accommodation remained unsafe and inaccessible. The REP also confirmed that Mrs Z had yet to be offered alternative accommodation and continued to remain in Accommodation D.

Delay in offering alternative accommodation

25. The Council accepted in early November 2024 that the property was unsuitable. This triggered an immediate duty to secure suitable alternative accommodation. The Council referred to the general difficulty of sourcing accessible homes, and I have not seen evidence of correspondence with Mrs Z nor the REP of specific steps it took to identify or prioritise suitable options for Mrs Z in the 11 weeks that followed.
26. The Council had a continuing duty to secure suitable temporary accommodation, which cannot be negated by general housing pressures. We recognise that wider demand and limited supply can constrain an authority’s options. However, service failure can occur even where fault arises from circumstances outside an organisation’s control. As a result, Mrs Z remained in housing the Council acknowledged did not meet her needs, which likely compounded the impact on her health and wellbeing. This is fault.
27. There was also delay in concluding the statutory suitability review itself. Mrs Z’s representative requested a review in July 2024, but the Council did not issue its decision until November 2024, approximately 16 weeks later. The Homelessness Code of Guidance expects reviews to be completed promptly, and good administrative practice suggests within eight weeks.
28. I have not seen an explanation for the extended timeframe in the correspondence available to me and I consider the time taken to complete the review was excessive. The delay in completing the suitability review contributed to an overall sense of delay and uncertainty. It may also have undermined the complainant’s confidence in the Council’s handling of the case. While the Council ultimately upheld the review, the time taken was excessive and fell short of expected administrative standards. This is also fault.

Outstanding disrepair and safety concerns

29. The Council’s Stage 2 response outlined various completed repairs, including improvements to ventilation, relocation of the waste bin area, and installation of a trickle ventilator. However, anti-slip bathroom flooring, a key adaptation identified as necessary to support safe access to bathroom facilities, had not been fitted as of late January 2025. This issue remained unresolved into February 2025 and, according to the representative’s latest update, was still outstanding as of July 2025.
30. This adaptation is not a minor enhancement but a basic safety measure for a resident with significant mobility needs. The delay in completing it is particularly concerning given the Council had already accepted the property was unsuitable and had committed to addressing health and safety risks. The failure to ensure the work was done within a reasonable timeframe contributed to the ongoing unsuitability of the accommodation and prolonged Mrs Z’s exposure to unnecessary risk. This was further fault. The Council should have taken more decisive steps to work with the managing agent and ensure completion, including setting and monitoring a clear timescale.

Adequacy of the £450 financial offer

31. The Council offered £450 as a gesture of goodwill but did not explain how it had calculated this amount or how it related to the duration or severity of injustice. Our guidance expects financial remedies to be proportionate and transparent. Given the length of time Mrs Z remained in accommodation the Council had deemed unsuitable, and the ongoing safety concerns, I do not consider the payment offered to be sufficient to reflect the impact of the failings identified.

Complaint handling

32. The representative said not all issues were addressed in the Council’s complaint response, though he did not identify specific omissions during our original discussion. In response to the draft decision, the representative raised broader concerns about the Council’s historic handling of Mrs Z’s homelessness applications, temporary accommodation, medical evidence, and housing register status dating back to 2019. These matters relate to events before the period covered by this investigation. They were brought to the Ombudsman in a previous case, which considered events up to May 2024 but did not investigate matters arising after Mrs Z moved to Accommodation D in that month. For this investigation, the Council’s Stage 2 response addressed the key complaint points within scope, including the suitability outcome, the delay in rehousing, disrepair, and the compensation offer. I do not find further fault in the way the Council handled this complaint.

Support with alternative housing

33. The Council advised the complainant to consider securing accommodation in the private sector and offered contact information for its housing options team. However, there is no evidence the Council offered proactive assistance to identify suitable properties or overcome barriers linked to affordability or accessibility.
34. In the context of a vulnerable resident with mobility needs, the Council’s response lacked meaningful support. While this does not amount to fault in isolation, it adds to the overall picture of limited practical help, despite a recognised duty to secure suitable accommodation.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. Our published Guidance on Remedies suggests a financial payment of between £150 and £350 per month may be appropriate where someone has lived in unsuitable temporary accommodation, depending on the severity and impact of the situation. In this case, Mrs Z has significant mobility needs and the Council itself found the property unsuitable due to the lack of adaptations. That unsuitability was compounded by unresolved safety concerns, including the absence of anti-slip flooring.
36. Taking account of the circumstances and Mrs Z’s vulnerability, I consider a payment toward the higher end of the range is justified, at £300. The statutory suitability review concluded in early November 2024, and the Council had still not made an alternative offer by the time of its Stage 2 complaint response at the end of January 2025, nearly three months later. I consider a fixed payment for this period is appropriate.
37. Following discussion with Mrs Z’s representative, I understand she remains in the same unsuitable accommodation. Unless the Council can provide evidence that a suitable offer has since been made and refused, I would expect the Council to continue making monthly payments to reflect the ongoing injustice until a suitable offer is made.
38. I also note that an identified safety adaptation, the anti-slip flooring, remains outstanding despite the Council acknowledging its importance. This has prolonged avoidable risk to Mrs Z. The Council should now take steps to resolve this without further delay and provide a clear timeframe to Mrs Z and her REP.
39. To remedy injustice in this complaint, the Council will:
1. Pay Mrs Z £1,500 to reflect the period from November 2024 to January 2025 during which she remained in unsuitable temporary accommodation, This amount also includes 2 months of delay in finalising the review, which took 4 months, for a total of 5 months at the remedy multiplier.
2. Continue to make monthly payments of £300 from February 2025 onwards, for each further complete month Mrs Z remains in unsuitable accommodation, until the date the Council makes a suitable offer. These payments should be backdated if appropriate.
3. Confirm whether anti-slip bathroom flooring has now been installed. If not, it should ensure this work is completed as a priority and provide Mrs Z’s representative with a clear timescale for completion.
4. Send a written apology to Mrs Z and her representative acknowledging the failings identified in this investigation.
40. The Council will complete actions a, c, and d within one month of this decision. Action b should continue until a suitable offer is made or new evidence is provided that the injustice has been otherwise remedied. The Council will provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance.

Back to top

Final Decision

41. We have concluded our investigation with a finding of fault. Based on the evidence, the Council delayed completing the suitability review and in offering suitable alternative accommodation, and failed to address identified safety adaptations. This caused avoidable uncertainty and left Mrs Z living in unsuitable conditions for longer than necessary. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman