Summary: Mr D complained about the Council’s handling of disrepair in his family’s temporary accommodation property, and they lived in unsuitable accommodation longer than they should have. We found the Council caused a service failure for delays in moving the family to a suitable accommodation from November 2024. It was not at fault for how it attempted to progress disrepair with his landlord, and parts of the complaint was late. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice its failure caused the family.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr D, complained the Council failed to take enough action to resolve disrepair in his temporary accommodation since 2023.
2. He also said it agreed the accommodation was unsuitable in November 2024 and placed the family on a transfer list, but they were still in the property.
3. Mr D said, as a result, the family had experienced distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. 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

8. I have investigated the Council’s handling of Mr D’s disrepair and suitability concerns from April 2024.
9. I have not investigated Mr D’s concerns about the Council’s handling of disrepair prior to April 2024. This is because this part of his complaint relates to matters which occurred more than 12 months ago and is therefore late. Although, Mr D approached the Ombudsman in early 2024, his complaint was premature at the time, and disrepairs were largely resolved shortly afterwards. He first brought his complaint back to our attention in Spring 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mr D 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

12. 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.
13. 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)
14. 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)
15. 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

16. 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)
17. 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)
18. 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.
19. Accommodation is not suitable if it falls below certain minimum standards. The Council must have regard to the standards set in the Housing Act 2004. The Homelessness Code of Guidance recommends that any accommodation should, as a minimum, be free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Councils should explicitly consider a building’s condition and risks to the health and safety of occupiers.

Background

20. Mr D and his family lived in a privately rented temporary accommodation arranged by the Council. The property is managed by a managing agent.
21. Mr D reported disrepair issues to the managing agent over several years. In 2023 he informed the Council again about issues, which included a roof leak, damp, and rodent issues.
22. The Council inspected the property and agreed action was needed by the agent. It spoke with the agent to get the repairs resolved and provided a deadline.
23. The managing agent completed repairs and updated the Council. This included confirmation from a pest control company that rodent issues had been resolved.
24. In late 2023 Mr D complained to the Council the disrepair issues were ongoing as it had not been properly resolved by the managing agent.
25. The Council again spoke with the agent and actions for repairs were agreed. The Council chased the agent. By Spring 2024 the agent confirmed all repairs had been completed and provided evidence of this to the Council.

What happened

26. In Summer 2024 Mr D told the Council the property was unsuitable for the family and requested a suitability review. The Council acknowledged his request.
27. Shortly after he also told the Council the roof leak issues had returned. A property inspection took place, and the Council asked the managing agent to look into the issue and make repairs.
28. In October 2024 Mr D informed the Council of a change in circumstances to the family household, which meant the property size was no longer suitable for their needs. He asked the Council to inspect the property and reach a decision on his suitability review request.
29. In November 2024 the Council visited Mr D and considered his review request. It found the property was unsuitable for the family due to:
• the size of the property being too small for the family, and they were therefore overcrowded; and
• ongoing disrepair issues which had not been adequately resolved by the managing agent.
30. The Council said the family would be placed on a transfer list to be moved to a suitable accommodation. It informed Mr D the move would not be immediate due to the high demand and need for properties in its area.
31. In early 2025 Mr D complained to the Council as the family remained in the unsuitable accommodation and the disrepair issues relating to damp and roof issues were still present.
32. The Council informed Mr D it had arranged for the managing agent to investigate and resolved the outstanding repair issues. The Council also placed the family of its transfer list to be moved to a suitable property.
33. Mr D escalated his complaint with the Council.
34. Over the following months, the Council remained in contact with the managing agent and chased the completion of repairs. The agent had arranged for a third-party contractor to investigate the damp and roof issues.
35. In April 2024 the Council provided its final complaint response to Mr D. It did not uphold his complaint and explained:
• Damp issues had been found to have been caused by the family due to lack of ventilation. However, a damp proofing agent had since been applied to walls; and
• roof issues were resolved in 2024, but the managing agent would carry out further proofing to resolve this and meet with Mr D when completed.
36. Mr D asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint as he remained dissatisfied with the disrepair issues and the family continued to live in an unsuitable accommodation. Since then:
• further works to the property was completed as damp issues were ongoing.
• in Autumn 2025, the Council made two offers of temporary accommodation to Mr D. However, he did not accept the accommodation and the Council’s duty to the family was not discharged; and
• in October 2025 the Council moved the family into a new accommodation, which it considered suitable.

Analysis and findings

Disrepair

37. As the temporary accommodation is outside the Council’s area, its environmental protection and public health duties regarding control of pests are not relevant. However, in accordance with the Council’s homelessness duties, it must ensure that temporary accommodation provided to a homeless household is suitable even if the accommodation is owned by a private landlord.
38. I have considered the steps the Council took to resolve his disrepair concerns from April 2024 until November 2024 when it found Mr D’s temporary accommodation was unsuitable for the family.
39. I have not found fault by the Council. This is because it:
• acknowledged his concerns each time he reported disrepair to the Council. It inspected the concerns or arranged for the managing agent to take action to investigate and resolve these without delay;
• it provided timescales for the managing agent, and followed up if it did not receive these or matters were outstanding; and
• received confirmation on each occasion the issues were resolved. However, due to underlying issues some disrepair reoccurred. The Council subsequently took appropriate action to ensure the managing agent properly investigated the underlying cause.
40. While it is clear Mr D and his family was impacted by some disrepair, this was therefore not due to fault by the Council.

Suitability of accommodation and placement on a transfer list

41. Mr D initially asked the Council for a suitability review in Summer 2024. However, the Council did not make a decision on this request until November 2024. I found the Council’s delay to consider this and reach a decision sooner to be fault.
42. While I acknowledge it was working with the managing agent to ensure inspections and further repairs were carried out, this should not have delayed the suitability review process.
43. However, in October 2024 Mr D reported his family’s change of circumstances to the Council, and it accepted the accommodation was unsuitable shortly after.
44. I considered the grounds the Council set out in its finding Mr D’s accommodation was unsuitable. I cannot say whether the accommodation would have been found unsuitable, if the suitability review had been carried out before the change in circumstances. I therefore found the accommodation was first unsuitable for the family from November 2024. The injustice the delay caused the family was therefore limited up to this time, and an apology to acknowledge this is appropriate.
45. From November 2024 the Council had a duty to move Mr D and his family to an accommodation which was suitable for their size and needs. I found the Council caused a service failure to do so until October 2025 when it placed them in a new accommodation.
46. I acknowledge the Council placed the family on its transfer list due to the lack of available properties and high demand in its area. However, its duty to the family was immediate when it found the accommodation to be unsuitable. It also took steps during 2025 to attempt to find accommodation, but such a service failure continues until it either places a family in suitable accommodation or discharges its housing duty through what it deems to be a suitable offer.
47. 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 Mr D’s family spent 11 months in unsuitable accommodation, which was from November 2024 to October 2025.
48. When coming to a suitable figure, I considered the reasons why Mr D’s property had been found unsuitable, which was overcrowding and ongoing disrepair issues. Including the impact this had Mr D and his family. I also had regard to the disrepair issues were not in the Council’s immediate control, and a move to a short-term interim accommodation was unlikely to be better for the family.

Service improvements

49. 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 for the same period as my investigation.
50. 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

51. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mr D, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Mr D to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused him and his 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 Mr D £1,650 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty the family experienced due to the time spent in unsuitable accommodation. I have calculated this at £150 per month.
2. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

53. I have completed my investigation with a finding the Council caused a service failure which resulted in Mr D and his family experiencing an injustice. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the impact this had.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman