Summary: The Council failed to provide suitable accommodation when Mr X and his family were homeless. It housed them in bed and breakfast accommodation for 22 weeks. The maximum time limit bed and breakfast accommodation can be used for homeless applicants with dependent children is six weeks. Mr X said the accommodation caused increased living expenses and distress. The Council agreed to make payments to remedy the family’s injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that he and his family were housed in unsuitable bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation for 22 weeks. He said this affected the physical and mental health of all members of the family, with a particular impact on his young children. He also said he faced additional costs while living in B&B accommodation. He wanted the Council to reimburse him for his losses and pay compensation for the injustice caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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.
4. 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

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

Homelessness legislation and statutory guidance

7. 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.

Differences between interim and temporary accommodation

8. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
9. 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)
10. If, having made inquiries, the 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)
11. 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)
12. 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 of accommodation – including use of B&B 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 accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
14. Wherever possible, Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.33)
15. B&B accommodation can only be used for households which include a pregnant woman or dependent child 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)

What happened

16. This is a summary of events outlining the key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
17. Mr X and his family were made homeless in August 2024. The Council housed the family in several B&Bs between then and January 2025. None of the B&Bs had cooking facilities.
18. The Council accepted in September 2024 it owed the housing relief duty to the family, and created a personalised housing plan with them.
19. In January 2025, Mr X complained to the Council about its failure to make a main housing duty decision in his case, as well as having housed him and his family in unsuitable B&B accommodation for five months.
20. The Council placed the family in a family hostel.
21. The Council wrote to Mr X in late January 2025 to inform him its relief duty had come to an end. The Council confirmed it owed Mr X a main housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act.
22. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in February, at stage one of its complaints procedure. This response upheld all areas of Mr X’s complaint, apologised to him, and acknowledged:

• The Council had housed Mr X and his family, including two small children, in unsuitable B&B accommodation for longer than the maximum allowable six weeks.
• The Council had offered some alternative self-contained temporary accommodation to other families in the area, between October 2024 and January 2025, that may have been suitable for Mr X and his family
• The Council should have accepted the main housing duty in December instead of late January. It acknowledged that this would have allowed Mr X to request an s202 review of the suitability of the B&B accommodation, which was not open to him under the relief duty.

The Council offered Mr X £500 compensation in recognition of its acknowledged faults.

23. The family moved into private rented accommodation in February. The Council confirmed by notice that this ended its housing duty.
24. Mr X asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure because he considered the £500 offered did not represent a suitable remedy for the harm he and his family had suffered. He also wanted the service charges he had paid to the Council to be refunded. The Council responded in late April, repeating its apology and the compensation offer of £500.
25. Mr X approached the Ombudsman in April 2025. He told us that he and his family did not have access to cooking facilities in any of the B&Bs in which they were placed. Although breakfast was provided, they often had to leave for the day before breakfast was served to transport their older child to school. He said they spent around £40 per day on takeaway food and sometimes skipped meals because this was unaffordable.
26. Mr X said the Council moved them frequently between accommodation placements, which was destabilising for the children. On one occasion the family was left without accommodation for a day when a Council officer forgot to book the next placement. Some of the B&Bs were affected by damp and mould that made his children unwell over the winter.
27. Mr X said he also faced service charges and his mental health was affected and he sought assistance from his GP. His wife’s physical and mental health was also impacted.

My findings

28. The Council was at fault for placing Mr X and his family in B&B accommodation. This was contrary to the Homelessness Code of Guidance that says B&B accommodation can only be used for households which include dependent child when no other accommodation is available, and then for no more than six weeks. I accept the Council’s explanation that it had no suitable property available when Mr X contacted it and arranged B&B accommodation as a last resort. I therefore find the initial fault was the result of service failure. The Council was also at fault for the long duration of the stay in B&B accommodation. These faults caused injustice to Mr X and his family. The injustice was the distress of living in a B&B for a prolonged period with a toddler and primary school-aged child, which caused difficulties and concern about the impact on the children.
29. The Council was also at fault in delaying making a main housing duty decision when the relief duty expired. This caused injustice in that Mr X was unable to request a statutory review of the suitability of the interim accommodation.
30. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a moderate, symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused.
31. I note the Council has already accepted it was at fault, in that the family were in unsuitable B&B accommodation for 16 weeks longer than the maximum they should have been. It has also admitted fault for delaying making a main housing duty decision. It has apologised to Mr X and offered a financial remedy.
32. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends a weekly payment in the range of £100 to £200 for each week beyond six weeks. The injustice suffered by Mr X and his family was aggravated by the number of people affected, the lack of space in the accommodation, the lack of cooking facilities, the age of the children, the number of moves, the quality of the accommodation, and the duration of the stay. I therefore recommend a payment of £150 per week (£2400) for the time Mr X and his family spent in unsuitable accommodation beyond the six-week limit.
33. Our guidance on remedies states we may also recommend a council reimburses quantifiable loss as a direct result of fault. This includes any extra charges and the reasonable additional cost of buying takeaway food when there are no cooking facilities, or inadequate cooking facilities. The accommodation had no cooking facilities, requiring the family to rely heavily on takeaway food. I have taken into consideration Mr X would have likely incurred service charges and costs for food regardless of the Council’s fault, and recommend an additional £100 per week (£1600) in recognition of the additional costs Mr X incurred.
34. I have decided not to make any service improvement recommendations in this case. The Council has explained the actions it is taking to secure suitable temporary accommodation for homeless families. The Council has also agreed to service improvements regarding its delays in awarding the main housing duty following similar recent findings by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Action

35. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to pay Mr X £4000, of which:
• £2400 is to remedy the injustice caused by placing him and his family in B&B accommodation for 22 weeks, without access to cooking facilities, and
• £1600 is in recognition of the additional costs he incurred as a result.

This payment is instead of the £500 previously offered by the Council, not in addition to.

36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

37. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman