Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about a delay in carrying out a review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation. We will not investigate further because the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the uncertainty caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the temporary accommodation provided by the Council was unsuitable and the Council had not supported him to request a review of its suitability. He said this meant he remained longer than he should have in unsuitable temporary accommodation.
2. Mr X also complained the Council had made an offer of social housing to end its homelessness duty but the housing offered was also unsuitable.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Temporary accommodation

8. Mr X, who has medical needs, told the Council the temporary accommodation it had provided to him was unsuitable and asked it to carry out a review in November 2024.
9. The Council did not respond so Mr X made a complaint in January 2025. The Council acknowledged the review request and said it would carry out a review. But in its complaint response in early February, it said it considered the accommodation was suitable.
10. In a further complaint in February, Mr X said the hostel manager was not supporting him or addressing his concerns, that he could not bathe properly due to a lack of space, and referred to previous requests to move so he can bathe and eat fresh food. I have not seen evidence of earlier requests to move and the
11. In March 2025, the Council completed the review and decided Mr X’s temporary accommodation was unsuitable. It said it would take steps to identify suitable alternative temporary accommodation.
12. A week later, the Council offer Mr X social housing. Mr X refused that, and the Council ended its homelessness duty. It allowed Mr X to remain in the temporary accommodation pending the outcome of the review. Mr X told us the Council had asked him to leave by 1 August.
13. If we investigated further, it is likely we would find the Council at fault for its delay in carrying out a suitability review when Mr X first asked for this in November 2024. The Council did decide the accommodation was unsuitable but there is some uncertainty about whether it would have done so earlier, but for the delay, and that is an injustice to Mr X. We would not expect it to take further steps to identify alternative temporary accommodation after it made an offer of long term housing that it considered was suitable.
14. We asked the Council to take steps to remedy the injustice caused and it agreed to carry out the following action within one month of the date of this decision:
• to apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice; and
• pay him £400 for the uncertainty caused.

Offer of social housing

15. The Council offered social housing in March 2025. Its letter explained the possible consequences of refusing the offer and that Mr X could ask for a review of its suitability. Mr X refused the offer because it did not meet his preferences.
16. In a final offer letter in April 2025, the Council explained the reasons he had given for refusing were not justified reasons for doing so. It explained it considered the property met Mr X’s assessed medical needs and gave him a final chance to accept it. Mr X did not do so, so the Council ended its homelessness duty on 7 May 2025.
17. Mr X had the right to ask for a review of that decision and a review decision was issued in early July, which upheld the Council’s decision to end the homelessness duty. This means the Council is no longer under a duty to provide temporary accommodation so Mr X must leave it.
18. Mr X has the right to appeal to the county court if he disagrees with the Council’s review decision. Notwithstanding his disabilities, it is reasonable for him to exercise that right because only the court can decide whether the property offered was suitable and, if appropriate, quash the Council’s decision.
19. Since it is reasonable for him to exercise his appeal right, we will not consider this part of his complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in carrying out a review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the uncertainty caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman