Summary: Miss X complained the Council placed her family, including a newborn baby, in unsuitable accommodation. We find the Council at fault for its failure to assess suitability at the point of placement, its delay in completing a suitability review, its poor oversight of the managing agents, its delay in moving the family after accepting the accommodation was unsuitable, and its poor communication and complaint handling. As a result, Miss X and her children lived in accommodation that was unsuitable from the outset and for a prolonged period, causing significant distress, hardship, risk to their health and wellbeing, and avoidable time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council placed her family in unsuitable accommodation outside the borough. In particular, she says the Council:

1. delayed completing a suitability review;
2. failed to take timely action or effectively monitor the managing agent to address significant disrepair;
3. delayed moving her family to an alternative property; and
4. provided poor communication and complaint handling.

2. Miss X says these failings left her living in unsuitable accommodation for two years, causing financial hardship, negatively affecting her family’s health, and impacting her mental wellbeing.

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. 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.
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

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. Miss X’s complaint relates to events beginning in August 2023, but she did not bring the complaint to us until February 2025, outside the 12-month time limit. However, I have exercised discretion to investigate the full period because it was reasonable for Miss X to give the Council time to address her concerns. There is also a continuous sequence of events and investigating only part of the complaint would risk an incomplete understanding of what happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. 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

Legislation and statutory 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.

The relief duty

11. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). 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)

Differences between interim and temporary accommodation

13. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
14. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
15. 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)
16. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
17. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.

Suitability

18. 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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
19. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:

• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)

Review rights

20. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions: 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.
21. Councils must complete reviews of the suitability of accommodation within eight weeks of the date of the review request.

What happened

22. In June 2023, shortly after giving birth, Miss X approached the Council as homeless. The Council completed an initial assessment.
23. In August 2023, the Council placed Miss X and her children in accommodation, which was located outside the Council’s borough.
24. Immediately after moving in, Miss X raised concerns about the condition and suitability of the property to the managing agents and the Council. The Council did not respond.
25. In October 2023, the Council accepted the main housing duty.
26. Miss X says she then requested a review of the suitability of the property. She says she chased this request several times but received no response.
27. In early January 2024, Miss X emailed the Council again explaining the property was unsuitable. She said the property had never had working heating, the windows were broken, and she was relying on electric and oil heaters she had purchased herself, which were costly to run and posed a safety risk for her children. She explained the lack of heating was affecting both her and her children’s health, her mental wellbeing, and her children’s school attendance. She also raised concerns about the distance from her children’s school, which involved significant time and travel costs. Miss X made clear she was requesting a suitability review, as she had done several times since October.
28. Later that month, Miss X emailed the Council twice more. She reported ongoing issues with a lack of hot water and raised concerns the electricity meter was faulty, causing her to be overcharged. She reiterated the accommodation remained unsafe and unsuitable, the managing agents had failed to take action, and that her family had been living in these conditions for five months.
29. In May, the Council responded to Miss X’s January contact. It treated her correspondence as a complaint and said it had been told by the managing agents in April the maintenance issues would be addressed. The Council said it therefore considered the matter resolved and advised Miss X that, if she believed the accommodation was unsuitable, she needed to request a suitability review.
30. In June, Miss X again requested a suitability review of the property and submitted a formal complaint. She explained that all previously reported issues remained unresolved, despite continued contact with the managing agents. She also raised a new concern about pests in the property. In addition, she explained that her medical conditions now required her to travel back to her home borough for hospital appointments.
31. Later that month, the Council acknowledged the suitability review request. Miss X submitted further evidence and information in support of her request.
32. In August, Miss X’s mother complained to the Council about the lack of heating and faulty electrics at the property, stating that despite repeated reports, no effective action had been taken.
33. In September, Miss X chased the Council for progress on the suitability review. She expressed concern about the approaching colder months and again highlighted the impact the conditions were having on her and her children’s health.
34. In late September, the Council responded to Miss X’s mother’s complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding, said it had asked the managing agents to resolve the repair issues, and advised that Miss X could request a suitability review.
35. In November, the Council carried out an inspection of The property. The inspection report raised serious concerns about the condition of the property and stated the family needed to be moved as soon as possible. It identified numerous issues, including no heating, broken windows, a broken oven and hob, a broken shower, pest infestation, and concerns about antisocial behaviour in the area. The report listed 13 actions that required completion without delay.
36. Following the inspection, the inspecting officer separately raised serious concerns about the safety of the property and the conditions in which the family was living.
37. The Council then completed the suitability review. It concluded the property was unsuitable due to its condition and disrepair, its location in relation to the children’s school, and Miss X’s medical circumstances. However, the Council stated in a follow up email the property was suitable for the short term while it sought alternative accommodation.
38. In January 2025, Miss X’s children’s support worker contacted the Council. They explained that both they and Miss X had repeatedly attempted to engage with the managing agents but had received no meaningful response since June 2024. They reported the property still had no hot water, no heating, no working oven, and ongoing pest infestation, and asked for urgent action. The Council logged this contact as a complaint.
39. Miss X also contacted the Council to chase an update and seek assistance with the ongoing situation.
40. In February, the Council responded, stating the managing agents were responsible for carrying out repairs and needed to respond to the concerns raised. The Council also contacted the managing agents requesting the required works be completed.
41. Later that month, after further chasing, the managing agents agreed to carry out the outstanding works.
42. In March, the Council responded to the support worker’s complaint. It said it had asked the managing agents to complete the repairs and acknowledged the accommodation was unsuitable. It explained there was high demand for accommodation, and the family would be moved when an alternative became available, although this could take some time.
43. The support worker escalated the complaint as they remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response.
44. In April, the Council issued its final complaint response. It said some repairs had been completed but acknowledged that several issues remained outstanding, which it expected to be resolved shortly. It reiterated the accommodation was unsuitable and the family would be moved when possible.
45. In June, Miss X complained again, stating that no further action or contact had followed the April response, that outstanding disrepair remained unresolved, and that she had received no update about moving.
46. In September, Miss X and her family were moved to alternative temporary accommodation.
47. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it holds no records showing how it assessed or confirmed the suitability of The property before placing Miss X there. It explained that, at the time of the placement, it did not carry out housing needs assessments prior to allocating accommodation, although it has since introduced this practice.
48. The Council said the delay between June 2024, when it acknowledged Miss X’s request for a suitability review, and November 2024, when it completed the review, was due to staffing shortages at the time.
49. The Council also said it could not identify where in the suitability review decision it stated that the property was considered suitable for the short term.

My findings

50. The Council has a duty to ensure any accommodation it provides to a homeless household is suitable at the point of placement. There is no evidence the Council assessed or satisfied itself that the property was suitable before placing Miss X and her children there. This was fault. The Council also failed to consider whether the property was suitable for the family and their specific circumstances. This was fault.
51. Shortly after the placement, Miss X raised significant concerns about the condition and suitability of the property, including the lack of heating, broken windows, unsafe electrics, and the distance from her children’s school. Despite these concerns, the Council failed to take effective action to ensure the accommodation was made suitable or to consider alternative accommodation. This was fault.
52. Miss X repeatedly asked the Council to review the suitability of the accommodation, using clear and explicit language. The Council failed to identify and log these requests as suitability review requests and instead treated her contact as a complaint. This was fault.
53. The Council relied on assurances from the managing agents that repairs would be completed but failed to effectively monitor whether the works were carried out, despite ongoing reports that the issues persisted. This was fault. This failure was particularly serious after the Council later accepted the accommodation was unsuitable.
54. The Council delayed completing the suitability review. Although it acknowledged Miss X’s request in June 2024, it did not complete the review until November 2024, significantly exceeding the statutory eight-week timescale. The Council has attributed this delay to staffing issues, but this does not excuse the failure. This was fault.
55. Following the completion of the suitability review, the Council accepted the accommodation was unsuitable due to disrepair, location, and medical grounds. It then owed an immediate, non-deferrable and unqualified duty to provide suitable accommodation. However, it failed to move Miss X and her family to alternative accommodation for a further ten months. The continued use of accommodation the Council had already deemed unsuitable was fault.
56. Throughout this period, the Council’s communication with Miss X was poor. It failed to respond to her correspondence on several occasions, responses were often significantly delayed, and its complaint handling did not lead to timely or meaningful action. This was fault.
57. As a result of the Council’s faults, Miss X and her children were housed in accommodation that was unsuitable for an extended period of time. On balance, the evidence shows the accommodation was unsuitable from the start of the placement and remained so throughout. The property was unsuitable not only because of its location and the impact on the children’s schooling and Miss X’s medical needs, but also because of severe, significant and persistent disrepair.
58. Miss X and her children, including a newborn baby, lived for a prolonged period without heating or reliable hot water, with broken windows, a non-functioning oven and hob, a broken shower, pest infestation, and concerns about antisocial behaviour. There were also concerns about the safety and cost of the electricity supply. These conditions caused significant distress, hardship, and risk to the family’s health and wellbeing.
59. Miss X was put to considerable time and trouble repeatedly chasing the Council and the managing agents, raising complaints, and providing evidence in an effort to secure repairs, a suitability review, and a move to alternative accommodation. This caused her significant and avoidable distress and uncertainty at a time when she was caring for young children.

Back to top

Action

60. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Miss X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• pay Miss X £8,750 to recognise her time spent in unsuitable accommodation. This has been calculated as £350 a month from August 2023 to September 2025; and
• pay Miss X £500 to recognise the time and trouble, distress and uncertainty caused by its poor handling of her complaints and contacts.
61. I have not recommended any further action for the Council to address the faults identified in this complaint. This is because the Council has already accepted and implemented service improvements previously recommended by the Ombudsman. These improvements include ensuring the suitability of accommodation is assessed before a homeless household is placed, assessing suitability with regard to each family’s individual circumstances, completing suitability reviews within statutory timescales, moving households immediately from accommodation found to be unsuitable, monitoring managing agents’ performance against the service level agreement, and improving complaint handling and communication. These recommendations were made and implemented after the events in this case.
62. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

63. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman