Summary: Ms F complained about the Council’s handling of her concerns about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. She said this impacted her and her family’s wellbeing and safety. We found fault by the Council for failing to complete the suitability review, action and progress disrepair with the managing agent, and to properly consider the anti-social behaviour. It also failed to adhere to its complaints policy and move the family to a suitable accommodation without delay. The Council agreed apologise to Ms F, make payment to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused her family, and complete a service improvement recommendation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms F, complained about the Council’s handling of her family’s housing situation over several years. She said it had failed to:
• provide safe and suitable housing when she raised concerns about the impact her temporary accommodation had on her family;
• act on her safeguarding and security concerns due to anti-social behaviour, and ignored advice from the police; and
• respond to her complaints in line with its policy.
2. Ms F said, as a result, her family had experienced distress and uncertainty. She also said they lived in unsafe and unsuitable accommodation for longer than they should have which impacted their health and education.

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. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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.
6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. 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)
8. 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

9. I have investigated Ms F’s concerns about the Council’s handling of her family’s housing situation in their temporary accommodation from January 2024.
10. I have not investigated her concerns relating to matters which happened before 2024. This is because this part of her complaint occurred more than 12 months before it was brought to our attention and is therefore late. I have seen no good reason to exercise my discretion.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Ms F and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Ms F 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, guidance, and policy

Suitability of accommodation

13. 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)
14. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) 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)
15. Decisions must normally be made within eight weeks of the review request, or within a reasonable timescale.
16. 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)
17. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30)
18. 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)

The Council’s Temporary Accommodation Transfer procedure

19. The procedure is the Council’s approach to transfer households in temporary accommodation where it has been identified their current accommodation is not suitable in the long term, or their accommodation will no longer be available. It seeks to ensure consistency in the process, for people have their housing needs assessed accurately, and moves to alternative accommodation are completed in a timely manner.
20. After a transfer request is received, the Council’s process said it aims to gather information and triage the request on the day it is received. It will then schedule a review of the households housing needs assessment. A decision should subsequently be made and communicated to the individual. The outcomes can be the accommodation is:
• suitable in the long term. The household will not be added to the transfer list; or
• suitable in the short term. The household is then added to the transfer list; or
• unsuitable even in the short term. The household is added to the transfer list and it will seek to move urgently.
21. A formal review of the housing needs assessment should be undertaken where the needs are complex, or where there is disagreement with a previous suitability outcome. This should be completed by its review team.
22. The procedure aims to prioritise people on the transfer list based on the length of time on its list. It may also prioritise based on domestic violence, disrepair, urgent health needs, or where significant multiple needs exist.

Anti-Social Behaviour

23. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). But ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable.
24. For example, they may approach a complaint:
• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution;
• as a planning matter, where the complaint is about an inappropriate use of a building or facility;
• as a licensing matter, where the complaint is about a licensed premises, such as a pub or nightclub;
• as part of their duties as a social landlord, where the alleged perpetrator is a council tenant (although we cannot investigate the council’s actions as a social landlord); and/or
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

Safeguarding

25. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
26. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
27. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect.

The Council’s complaints process

28. The Council’s policy says it will acknowledge complaints about housing within five working days. It will then respond:
• to stage one complaints within 10 working days;
• to stage two complaint within 20 working days; and
• if a complaint is complex its responses may take longer. It will notify the complainant and explain the reasons for a delayed response.

Background

29. Ms F lived with her children in a one-bedroom temporary accommodation flat. The accommodation was provided by the Council under its homelessness relief duty. It has also accepted a main housing duty to Ms F. The property is managed by an agent.
30. Ms F has over several years raised issues about disrepair and anti-social behaviour in the building. Some repairs and actions were taken, but the issues were not fully resolved or re-occurred.

What happened

31. In early 2024 Ms F made a suitability review request of her temporary accommodation to the Council. Her request was also a complaint to the Council. She explained it was unsuitable due to:
• ongoing disrepair which included water leaks, dampness, faulty heating, an insecure door, and general disrepair and cleanliness issues;
• anti-social behaviour in and outside the building, which included substance abuse in a common area and hallways. She said this was a safeguarding issue as she did not feel safe and the fire alarm system was regularly turned off and non-residents had easy access to the building; and
• the size of the accommodation was too small for her family, and the accommodation was far away from her support network.
32. Ms F’s children’s school raised concerns about their absence or lateness to school. It shared its safeguarding concerns about Ms F’s accommodation with the Council.
33. The Council contacted the managing agent for Ms F’s accommodation, which agreed to inspect and arrange repairs. The Council also acknowledged her suitability review request.
34. In March 2024 Ms F asked the Council for an update on her suitability review request and the disrepair issues. It explained it had a backlog to action review the request, but it would be considered.
35. In Spring 2024 an incident occurred where an unknown person attempted to break into Ms F’s flat and threatened to harm her. The police attended, but the individual had already left. Ms F said the police told her to approach the Council as the accommodation was unsuitable for her family.
36. The school’s welfare officer attempted to support Ms F by raising concerns to the Council about the family’s safety and welfare in the accommodation. The Council said it would arrange a call back.
37. In April 2025 the Council partially upheld Ms F’s complaint. It said it would address her complaint as part of its suitability review, which it had acknowledged. It would arrange an inspection to consider the accommodation and disrepair issues.
38. In Summer 2024 a further incident occurred where the door to Ms F’s flat was kicked in. She reported this to the police and the Council. She said this made her feel even more unsafe in the accommodation. She subsequently escalated her complaint with the Council.
39. The school’s welfare officer also contacted the Council to raise the concern about the break in, and questioned the Council’s failure to consider and respond to the suitability review and ongoing disrepair issues.
40. The Council subsequently:
• arranged an urgent inspection of Ms F’s accommodation and for the agent to replace her door. This was replaced about a week later with a more secure door and lock;
• shared its inspection report with the agent and issued a repair notice with timescales for completion. This set out several issues including water leaks and dampness, heating broken, broken windows, and some fire safety concerns;
• followed up with the managing agent on the repairs, which were completed in late July 2024;
• sought information from the police to confirm whether it was the police’s view Ms F’s accommodation was unsafe for her family. It chased the police when it did not get a response. By July 2024 the police said the break in incident were caused by unknown individuals so it could not say whether there was an ongoing risk to Ms F.
41. Ms F also told the Council about a domestic violence incident involving her former partner. The Council discussed the concern with her, but she decided not to pursue the matter further. It provided her with information about domestic violence support available.
42. In July 2024 the Council decided to place Ms F on its transfer list to be moved to another accommodation. This was a discretionary decision as no suitability review had been completed. No suitability review decision was subsequently made.
43. In August 2024 the Council provided its final complaint response to Ms F. It apologised for the delay in responding which was due to a high volume of cases and a backlog. It explained repairs had been actioned, security concerns had been addressed as the door had been replaced and the police had not confirmed Ms F was at risk, and it had placed the family on its transfer list for a larger property. It warned a move is likely to take some time due to the lack of properties available to the Council.
44. In Autumn 2024 the Council completed a housing needs assessment, which said Ms F had a need for a two-bedroom property, which therefore confirmed they lived in an overcrowded accommodation.
45. In Spring 2025 Ms F asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint. She said her family remained in the accommodation and she was not satisfied with the Council’s handling or response to her concerns.
46. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council confirmed it has no record of a suitability review decision for Ms F. It said it would action this. It also explained it had a backlog of actioning requests in 2024 due to staffing changes, but it has since recruited to the relevant team.
47. In Autumn 2025 the Council offered and placed Ms F in a new accommodation.

Analysis and findings

Disrepair of Ms F’s accommodation

48. I found the Council properly considered and actioned disrepair concerns with the managing agent from June 2024 when Ms F reported the attempted break in. While, it still took over a month to have some repairs dealt with, this was not due to fault by the Council as it chased the agent and issued a repair notice.
49. However, the Council was aware of disrepair in Ms F’s accommodation in January 2024. While it initially actioned this with the managing agent, no substantial repairs were completed until Summer 2024. I found fault by the Council for its failure to act as it did in June 2024 to inspect, chase, and issue a repair notice on the managing agent.
50. On balance, based on the agents’ actions when the Council did do so, I am satisfied there was a missed opportunity to have the repairs completed sooner. Ms F therefore experienced distress and frustration to live in an accommodation in disrepair for longer than she should have.

Suitability of accommodation, safeguarding, and anti-social behaviour

51. Ms F asked the Council to consider her request for a suitability review of her accommodation in January 2024. Her concerns included the disrepair, anti-social behaviour, safety, and the size and location of the accommodation.
52. Although, the Council acknowledged her request and passed it to the relevant team to action, no suitability review was ever completed and issued to Ms F. This was fault.
53. I also acknowledge the disrepair was actioned and a more secure door was installed in Summer 2024. However, I have not seen any evidence the Council properly considered the powers available to it in relation to the anti-social behaviour. Nor the safety concerns this caused Ms F and her children in and outside the building. This was also fault.
54. The Council was not at fault for how it considered the attempted break in or Ms F’s report of domestic violence. This is because it actioned these events by ensuring a new and safer door was installed, liaising with the police, and Ms F did not wish to pursue her domestic violence concern.
55. I found the Council should have properly considered each of Ms F’s suitability concerns about the accommodation by the end of March 2024. It should then have issued its decision, which could be:
• the accommodation was suitable, in which case Ms F should have been provided with her appeal rights; or
• the accommodation was not suitable, in which case Ms F should have been moved to a suitable accommodation without delay.
56. In this case, the Council added Ms F to its transfer list in July 2024 following its property inspection and the incidents which occurred in Summer 2024. As the Council’s records are not clear, it is unknown what the reasons for its discretionary decision were.
57. However, its subsequent decision not to complete the suitability review, as the outcome would have been to add Ms F to its transfer list, is fault. This is because no decision was therefore made as to whether the accommodation was suitable or not in the short term, and no appeal rights were issued to her. It was also not possible for the Council to properly consider its prioritisation as set out in its Temporary Accommodation Transfer procedure.
58. I found, on balance, the accommodation was unsuitable for Ms F and her children from March 2024 when the Council’s review should have been completed. The Council’s failure to find Ms F a suitable accommodation until August 2025 therefore meant they lived in unsuitable conditions for 17 months which impacted their wellbeing, safety, and education.

Complaints handling

59. The Council apologised to Ms F for delays in both its stage one and stage two complaints processes. The evidence shows it:
• took three months to provide its stage one response, which was significantly more than the 10 working days in its policy;
• took two months to provide its stage two response, which was longer than the 20 working days in its policy; and
• did not send Ms F a notification to explain it would take longer to respond and the reasons.
60. In addition, the Council stage one response failed to respond to Ms F’s concerns. This is because it merely said these would be considered in its suitability review, which was then never completed. While it may have been appropriate to consider some of her concerns as part of the review, delays about the process and the disrepair should have been responded to.
61. I understand the Council had a high volume of complaints and annual leave impacted its response times. However, its failure to adhere to its complaints policy was fault. I am satisfied this caused Ms F some additional frustration and uncertainty.

Service improvements

62. I have not made any service improvement recommendations relating to Ms F’s housing concerns or its complaints handling. This is because we have investigated several complaints against the Council relating to its handling of suitability reviews, disrepair, and complaints handling for the same period as my investigation.
63. Following our recommendations, in October 2024 the Council started a Temporary Accommodation Improvement Project which aims at improving the Council’s services in this area. It has recruited more staff, made process changes, issued staff reminders, monitored its managing agent, and shared evidence it has reduced the backlog of suitability reviews and complaints.
64. We recognise it will take some time for the Council to fully address its failings identified in our recent investigations. We will be monitoring the effectiveness of the Council’s actions following our recommendations through our casework.

Back to top

Action

1. apologise in writing to Ms F to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused her and her 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 Ms F a symbolic payment of £300 to acknowledge the unnecessary distress and uncertainty she experienced as a result of the Council’s poor communication and complaints handling; and
3. pay Ms C £3,400 to acknowledge the distress and hardship caused to Ms C and her family for the time spent in the unsuitable accommodation. I have calculated this at £200 per month up to Autumn 2025 when she was moved to an alternative accommodation.

In total the Council should pay Ms F £3,700.

65. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1.  
2.  
3.  
4. review why the Council did not consider and record its decision making around the anti-social behavior and related safeguarding concerns raised in this case. It should consider its findings and set out the steps it intends to take in its Temporary Accommodation Improvement Project. This is to ensure all relevant teams are involved, views are recorded and shared internally, and decision making is evidenced and includes all relevant concerns.
66. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

67. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault which caused Ms F and her family an injustice. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the impact this had on them. I will also carry out a service improvement recommendation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman