Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his reports about the unsuitability of his temporary accommodation. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: properly consider whether Property A was suitable accommodation; notify Mr X of his right to request a review; respond to complaints about disrepair and suitability; and its delay completing the review. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by: apologising to Mr X; making a payment to recognise the impact of living in unsuitable accommodation; providing an update on its action to move Mr X to suitable accommodation; and making service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the temporary accommodation the Council provided for him and his family under its homelessness duties. He says the accommodation is unsuitable because it is in disrepair, with damp and mould affecting his children’s health, and unsafe for his child with special needs. He says the Council failed to:

• respond properly to his contact about issues at the accommodation;
• complete a proper suitability review; and
• move him to suitable accommodation.

2. Mr X says, because of the Council’s failures, he and his family are living in unsuitable accommodation with risks to his children’s health and safety. This has caused them considerable distress and worry.
3. He wants the Council to move them to safe and suitable accommodation as a matter of urgency.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
5. 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)
6. 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

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. Mr X brought his complaint to us in April 2025. I have exercised my discretion to investigate events which took place more than 12 months before this, and will look at what happened from September 2023, when Mr X moved into the temporary accommodation.
9. This is because Mr X raised concerns about the suitability of the accommodation immediately after moving in, but there is no evidence he was told about his right to ask for a suitability review until October 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

What should have happened

Suitability of accommodation

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 accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
13. 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 its 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)

Review rights

14. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a decision about the suitability of accommodation offered to them after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193).
15. Decision 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)
16. Councils must complete a review of a suitability decision within eight weeks of the date of the review request:

What happened

17. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint

Background

18. In March 2023 the Council provided Mr X and his family (which includes young children) with interim accommodation in bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation because they were homeless.
19. In April 2023, the Council accepted it owed Mr X the main housing duty. This meant the accommodation it was currently providing for Mr X was now temporary accommodation.
20. Mr X completed the Council’s accommodation suitability form. He told the Council he and his wife had 3 children, all under 10 years old, and that one of the children had autism and support needs.

August 2024: move to new temporary accommodation

21. In August 2023, Mr X and his family were still living in B&B accommodation.
22. The Council offered Mr X alternative temporary accommodation (Property A). A case note of 21 August says it sent Mr X an offer letter for the property. It has not provided a copy of this letter.
23. On 26 August the Council asked its medical adviser to review the family’s medical information and advise whether Property A was suitable temporary accommodation. It told the adviser Property A was a second-floor maisonette with two double bedrooms, 22 steps to the communal front door and 18 steps inside the accommodation.
24. The medical officer’s advice was that a second-floor maisonette would not be suitable accommodation for Mr X and his family.
25. Mr X and his family moved into Property A in September 2023.

September 2023 to January 2024: Mr X’s contact about issues at Property A

26. In September, Mr X told the Council about leaks at the property. He was told the Council would look into this but heard nothing further.
27. In November Mr X asked for an update and reported further leaks. He did not receive any response. He called the Council a number of times but was unable to speak to the officer concerned.
28. In January 2024 Mr X told the Council about the ongoing disrepair and safety issues at the property, including:

• leaks in the kitchen and living room;
• mould in the bathroom;
• mice infestation;
• stairs and windows, which could not be secured, were a safety risk for his child with special needs; and
• two-bedroom accommodation was not adequate for the family’s needs. They needed a separate bedroom and outdoor space for their child with special needs.

29. Mr X also told the Council he and his wife had a new baby.
30. Mr X says he followed up his email with calls to the Council, visits to its offices and a further email of 29 January, but did not receive any response.

February to August 2024: Mr X’s further contact with the Council

31. Mr X says he visited the Council’s offices numerous times to speak to his case officer without success.
32. The Council’s case notes record the following contact:

• 23 April: Mr X called to speak to his case worker. He said he had now been in temporary accommodation for six months and made numerous attempts to contact his case worker;
• 14 May: Mr X came to the council offices and asked to see his case worker
• 4 June: Mr X came to the council offices and asked to see his case worker

33. On 26 June Mr X contacted the Council again. He said nothing had been done about the disrepair and safety issues he had reported.

September 2024: contact with Mr X’s MP

34. In September Mr X asked his MP for help with the issues at his accommodation. The MP contacted the Council on his behalf.
35. The Council replied to his MP in October. It acknowledged Mr X had not had any recent communication from it about his homelessness case and that an officer would contact him urgently about this. It also acknowledged Mr X’s concerns about the suitability of his accommodation. It said he had the right to ask for a suitability review and set out how he could do this.
36. On 5 November Mr X told the Council he had not received any further contact about his case. An officer called Mr X on 13 November and advised him to ask for a suitability review.

November 2024 to January 2025: Mr X’s request for a suitability review

37. On 14 November Mr X sent an email to the Council’s review team, as advised in the Council’s response to his MP. He said the accommodation was unsuitable for his family because of the disrepair and safety risks, particularly for his child with special needs, which included:

• leaks, mould and a mice infestation;
• stairs and windows, which could not be secured, were a safety risk for his child with special needs; and
• two-bedroom accommodation was not adequate for the family’s needs. They needed a separate bedroom and outdoor space for their child with special needs.

38. Mr X’s MP contacted the Council again on 9 December for an update on its action in response to the issues with the accommodation.
39. On 8 January the Council asked Mr X whether he had reported the issues to the repair team and, if so, whether they had been resolved.
40. On 14 January, Mr X contacted the reviews team. He sent it details of his contact with the Council about the issues since September 2023. He advised the mould and mildew in the accommodation was spreading, and his children were developing respiratory problems and allergic reactions. He asked for suitable accommodation safe for his child with special needs and all the children.

February 2025: Council’s response to the review request

41. The Council asked its medical adviser for advice about suitability of accommodation for Mr X and his family. It told the adviser:

• the family comprised a couple and three children under 10 currently in two-bedroom temporary accommodation;
• one of the children was autistic, lacked any sense of danger and required constant supervision;
• the family reported their current temporary accommodation was unsuitable. The child with autism required their own bedroom and space, the windows could not be secured, the child threw objects out of the windows and climbed walls.

42. The Council asked the adviser for their housing recommendation and view on whether the child needed their own room and easy access to outdoor facilities on medical grounds
43. The medical adviser provided the following recommendation:

• second floor maximum or lifted;
• window and balcony locks;
• nil else specific; and
• an extra bedroom and garden were not medically essential. They recommended the use of public outdoor space.

44. On 6 February the Council issued its review outcome letter. It said:

• it had concluded their accommodation was not ideal; and
• this decision meant Mr X’s case would be returned to the housing resolution team to re-assess their circumstances and seek suitable alternative accommodation for them.

February to April 2025: action following the review

45. Mr X told the Council he was confused about the outcome letter and asked what “not ideal” meant. The Council said he would need to liaise with the housing resolution team.
46. On 17 February the Council told Mr X it would contact him when they had identified another suitable property, but could not say when this would be due to the shortage of accommodation in the borough.
47. Mr X heard nothing further from the Council about a move to alternative suitable accommodation. He brought his complaint to us in April 2025.
48. As at the date of this decision, Mr X and his family are still living in unsuitable accommodation at Property A.

My decision - was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

a) The offer of Property A as temporary accommodation

49. In my view, the Council failed to properly consider whether Property A was suitable for Mr X and his family before offering it as temporary accommodation.
50. The medical adviser had advised Property A was not suitable for the family because it was a second-floor maisonette. I have not seen any information showing if, or how, the Council considered this advice or the other information about the family’s needs before deciding Property A was suitable accommodation for Mr X.
51. The Council should have told Mr X, when it offered him the property, it had decided it was suitable for him and that he had the right to ask for a review of this decision. I have not seen any evidence it told him about this review right until October 2024.
52. These failures were fault. I have considered their impact below.

b) Failure to respond to complaints about disrepair and suitability

53. Mr X raised concerns with the Council about significant disrepair and safety issues at the accommodation continuously from September 2023 to February 2025 without any meaningful response from the Council.
54. Not only did the Council fail to take any action to remedy the disrepair, in my view it also failed to properly respond to Mr X’s concerns as a request for a review of the suitability of his accommodation.
55. These failures were fault. I have considered their impact below.

c) Failure to complete the review on time and provide a proper outcome

56. The suitability review should have been completed by 9 January 2025 (within eight weeks of Mr X’s request on 14 November 2024). It was not completed until 6 February 2025. This failure to complete the review within the required timescale was fault.
57. The purpose of the review was to determine whether the accommodation was suitable for Mr X and his family. The review letter simply said it “wasn’t ideal”. The Council has confirmed it accepted the accommodation was unsuitable but its failure to make this finding clear in the outcome letter was fault.
58. These failures were fault. I have considered their impact below.

Impact of these failures

59. Had the Council properly considered whether Property A was suitable for Mr X, in particular the medical adviser’s recommendation it was not, it may have decided not to offer it to Mr X. This has caused Mr X uncertainty as to whether, but for the Council’s failure, he would have been provided with alternative suitable accommodation from September 2023.
60. Because of the Council’s failure to respond properly to Mr X’s concerns about disrepair and the suitability of the accommodation, and its delay completing the suitability review (which determined Property A’s unsuitability), Mr X and his family have lived in unsuitable accommodation for more than two years as at the date of this decision.
61. The failures and delays also caused Mr X upset and uncertainty about the action the Council would take to resolve his concerns, and the outcome of the review.
62. Where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation during what would inevitably have been a stressful period in their life, our recommendation for symbolic financial redress is likely to be in the range of £150 to £350 a month. We may recommend a higher monthly amount in cases where the injustice is exceptional or particularly severe.
63. We assess each case on its merits and consider the impact the fault had on the complainant and other members of their household. The factors we take into account include:

• the size of the accommodation – are there enough rooms for the household?
• the condition and state of repair of the accommodation.
• are toilet and bathing facilities private or shared with other households?
• are there adequate facilities to store, prepare and cook food?
• the age of the household members.
• any disabilities or vulnerabilities of the household members.

64. In this case I consider the redress should be towards the middle of our range.

Service improvements

65. In our recent decisions on complaints about the Council raising similar issues, we recommended it:

• identify the reason for the delay in carrying out a suitability review and implement improvements to prevent such delays in future; and
• remind all housing officers, including managers, to tell applicants in writing they have a right to request a review of certain decisions. Officers must send standard letters with outcomes and decisions which tell applicants of those rights, even if officers tell the applicant about decisions by email or phone.

66. The Council has also told us, in response to our enquiries about Mr X’s complaint, it accepts the review outcome letter was poorly worded and it has addressed this with review officers.
67. In view of this, I have not recommended further service improvements on these aspects of Mr X’s complaint

Back to top

Action

68. To remedy the injustice caused by the above fault, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X for its failures to: properly consider whether Property A was suitable accommodation; notify him of his right to request a review; respond to complaints about disrepair and suitability; and its delay and failures in completing the review. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. pay Mr X a total of £5,200 to recognise the impact on the family caused by living in unsuitable temporary accommodation for 26 months from September 2023 to November 2025. This payment should continue at £200 a month (for a maximum of six months) until the Council provides Mr X with suitable accommodation. This is based on our guidance on remedies; and
3. provide us with an update on the action it is taking to move Mr X and his family to alternative suitable accommodation.
69. And within three months from the date of our final decision the Council should review its procedures for:
1. making offers of temporary accommodation to applicants to ensure decisions about suitability and notification of review rights are properly recorded; and

• recording applicants’ reports of disrepair or suitability issues with temporary accommodation and the action taken by the Council in response to these reports.

70. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

71. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman