Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to house Miss X in suitable accommodation after she became homeless. It later moved Miss X but failed to properly consider if that new accommodation was suitable for her and delayed carrying out a review of one of its decisions. The Council’s faults caused Miss X distress, uncertainty and frustration. To remedy her injustice, the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. It will also consider what steps it should take to prevent delays in carrying out homelessness reviews in future.

The complaint

1. Mr Z complained on behalf of Miss X that the Council housed Miss X and her son in unsuitable bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation for too long after they became homeless. Mr Z said the Council failed to compensate Miss X for that unsuitable accommodation, despite accepting it was at fault. Mr Z also complained about the independence of the Council’s complaints handling and about the Council’s wider use of B&Bs as homelessness accommodation.
2. Mr Z said the Council caused harm to Miss X and her son and affected her son’s development.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• There is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr Z and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr Z 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

Relevant law and guidance

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
9. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
10. A council has a duty to 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 interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188). If, after accepting it owes the applicant the interim accommodation duty, a council makes enquiries and decides the applicant is intentionally homeless, it ends the duty.
11. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
12. 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). The Code notes that accommodation that is suitable in the short-term may not be suitable for a longer period.
13. When deciding if accommodation is suitable, the law says councils must consider several factors, including the size of the property and whether it is legally overcrowded. The law sets out tests to decide whether living accommodation is ‘overcrowded’. (Housing Act 1985, sections 324-326). A home is overcrowded if two people of the opposite sex aged over 10 and who are not living together as a couple have to sleep in the same room.
14. Bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation can only be used for households which include a pregnant woman or dependent son when no other accommodation is available and then for no more than six weeks. B&B is accommodation which is not self-contained, not owned by the council or a registered provider of social housing and where the toilet, washing, or cooking facilities are shared with other households. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.35)
15. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decisions set out below. The notifications are normally sent in the form of letters, which must include information on the person’s right to ask for a review. The council must complete the review within eight weeks of the review request.

• A decision that a person was intentionally homeless; and
• The suitability of temporary accommodation.

16. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation while they await the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5)). Accommodation provided under this power must also be suitable for the applicant’s needs.

Complaints handling

17. The Council has a two stage complaints procedure which covers issues including homelessness accommodation. Its policy says that, at stage two, it will appoint an independent senior officer to review the complaint and that this will not be the same person who responded at stage one.

The Ombudsman’s guidance

18. The Ombudsman has issued guidance titled “Principles of Good Administrative Practice” which helps councils ensure they get the basics right by setting out six core principles of good administration. One of those principles “being citizen focused” notes that councils should deal with people helpfully, promptly and sensitively, taking account of their individual circumstances.

What happened

19. In 2024, Miss X became homeless and the Council accepted it owed her the interim housing duty. It moved Miss X and her teenage son into a B&B (accommodation A) while it assessed her circumstances further.
20. In late January 2025, the Council decided Miss X was intentionally homeless. This meant the interim accommodation duty came to an end.
21. Miss X asked the Council to review its decision. While the Council was considering Miss X’s review, it continued to house her and her son in accommodation A.
22. At the end of January, the Council moved Miss X into accommodation B. Accommodation B is a B&B but the Council considers it to be self-contained because residents have use of a microwave to cook and heat food. It has decided this based on its interpretation of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003. Mr Z disagrees with this interpretation and also told me the living space at accommodation B was too small for Miss X and her son.
23. I asked the Council how it decided accommodation B was suitable. The Council said accommodation B was suitable because it was on the ground floor, had beds, a portable hob, microwave, fridge, kettle and toaster as well as a self-contained bathroom.
24. Mr Z complained to the Council. He said Miss X had been housed in accommodation A for over six weeks, which was a breach of the law. He said accommodation B was also a B&B and that he did not agree with the Council’s wider use of B&Bs as accommodation for homeless applicants.
25. The Council responded at stage one of its complaints procedure to say:
• Its use of B&Bs was unavoidable and it was making efforts to improve matters;
• Accommodation B was not a B&B; and
• While it accepted Miss X had stayed in accommodation A for more than six weeks, it “simply cannot afford to make financial payments to all applicants who have spent more than 6 weeks living in Bed & Breakfast accommodation”.
26. Mr Z asked for a stage two response to his complaint, which the Council sent shortly after. The Council’s response came from a senior officer in one of the Council’s housing services. It said the Council had apologised for housing Miss X and her son in a B&B for more than six weeks, at accommodation A. It said it had already explained why it decided a financial remedy was not appropriate for that, and reiterated that accommodation B was not a B&B.
27. In late April 2025, the Council upheld Miss X’s review. It accepted it owed her the main housing duty. The Council did not send Miss X a notification letter setting out its offer of housing in accommodation B as temporary accommodation, or her right to ask for a review of its suitability.
28. Mr Z complained to the Ombudsman. His complaint included the matters he had raised with the Council and that:
• The Council had not compensated Miss X for housing her in a B&B for too long; and
• The officer who responded to his complaint at stage two was not suitably independent because they had management oversight of the matters he had complained about.
29. The Council moved Miss X to different accommodation (accommodation C) in May 2025.

Findings

Decision that Miss X was intentionally homeless

30. The Council took almost 14 weeks to carry out a review of its decision that Miss X was intentionally homeless. This was six weeks longer than the law allows and was fault. It caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty about what the review outcome would be.

Temporary accommodation offer letter

31. When the Council decided it owed Miss X the main housing duty in April 2025, accommodation B became temporary accommodation. The Council failed to send Miss X a notification letter setting out that it had decided accommodation B was suitable temporary accommodation and informing her of her right to ask for a review of that decision. This was fault. However, it did not cause Miss X a significant personal injustice because the Council moved her to accommodation C around two weeks later. Reviews can take up to eight weeks so even if Miss X had known of her right to ask for a review, it was unlikely she would have had a response to that review before she moved out of accommodation B. If Miss X is unhappy with the suitability of accommodation C, she can ask the Council for a review.

Accommodation suitability

32. The Council must ensure homelessness accommodation is suitable for the person living there, regardless of whether it is temporary or interim accommodation. It must also ensure any accommodation is suitable if the Council chooses to house a person while a review is ongoing.
33. Initially, accommodation A was interim accommodation. Later, the Council chose to house Miss X there while she awaited the outcome of her review request. The Council accepts accommodation A is a B&B and that Miss X lived there with her son for more than six weeks. In total, Miss X lived at accommodation A for nine weeks too long. This was fault and caused Miss X avoidable distress.
34. Despite accepting in its complaint response that accommodation A was unsuitable for Miss X, the Council refused to offer her a remedy. The Council has not provided any rationale for its decision other than that it cannot afford to remedy the injustice to everyone staying in a B&B over six weeks. This response failed to consider the individual circumstances of Miss X’s case. It was not good administrative practice, in line with the Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice. This was fault. The Council’s failure to remedy Miss X’s injustice as it should have caused her further upset.
35. Initially, the Council chose to house Miss X in accommodation B while it carried out her review. The Council decided it owed Miss X the main housing duty partway through the time she was living in accommodation B. At that point, the housing became temporary accommodation and Miss X had the right to ask for a review of its suitability. The Ombudsman does not usually investigate a matter if a complainant had a right to ask for a review of a decision they were unhappy about. This is because the complainant had an alternative way to resolve their concerns. However, given Miss X was unaware of that right of review and given she moved to accommodation C soon after, I have considered whether accommodation B was suitable throughout the entire period Miss X stayed there.
36. Mr Z’s concerns about the suitability of accommodation B were partially based on whether or not accommodation B was a B&B or self-contained accommodation. That decision depends on interpretation of the wording of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003. It is not something for the Ombudsman’s to decide; such matters are for the courts to consider. As a result, I will not investigate whether or not accommodation B was a B&B, because we cannot achieve Miss X’s desired outcome; to decide it was one. In addition, it is open for Miss X to challenge the Council’s decision through a judicial review, so there is another body better placed to consider her concerns.
37. Mr Z also feels accommodation B was too small. Space is a key factor councils must consider when deciding homelessness accommodation is suitable. Because Miss X’s son is over ten, she was overcrowded according to the room standard. There is no evidence the Council considered this before offering accommodation B to Miss X, which was fault.
38. However, I cannot say, even on balance, that had the Council not been at fault, it would have decided either accommodation was unsuitable. The Code confirms that even if temporary accommodation would be unsuitable in the long-term, that does not mean it is unsuitable in the short-term. It is plausible that the Council would have decided it was acceptable for Miss X to be overcrowded for a short time before moving her to new accommodation. Therefore, the fault caused Miss X uncertainty about what the Council might have decided if it considered the accommodation’s suitability properly.

The Council’s wider use of B&Bs

39. Mr Z has identified what he feels are significant issues with the Council’s service. We are considering those matters as part of another case we are investigating and do not need to consider them further here in order to remedy any injustice to Miss X so we will not make findings on them in this investigation.

Complaints handling

40. Mr Z feels the Council’s complaints handling was poor because the person that responded at stage two was insufficiently independent. However, the senior officer appointed to respond to a stage two complaint should have sufficient understanding of the issues to answer the complaint. This is likely to mean the officer is based in the department responsible for the matters complained about.
41. The senior officer was sufficiently independent from the matters Mr Z complained about on Miss X’s behalf, which was in accordance with its complaints policy and good administrative practice.

Back to top

Action

42. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions.
1. Apologise to Miss X for the impact of housing her in a B&B for more than six weeks and for the frustration, upset and uncertainty she felt because of the faults set out in this decision. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. Pay Miss X £900 to recognise the impact of living in a B&B for more than six weeks. This amounts to £100 per week, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
3. Pay Miss X a further £200 for the upset, frustration and uncertainty she felt because of the Council’s delay reviewing its decision that she was intentionally homeless, its failure to remedy her injustice in its complaint response and its failure to properly consider if accommodation B was suitable for her.
4. Identify why the Council took six weeks too long to complete Miss X’s review and what action it should take to prevent similar delay in the future. The Council will tell the Ombudsman what steps it will take and when it will do them by.
43. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman