Summary: Miss X complained that the London Borough of Islington Council (the Council) placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation. She said she reported problems to the Council, including when her landlord failed to complete important repairs. She also complained the Council did not properly consider the suitability of the accommodation. Miss X said she had long periods without contact or support from the Council which caused her distress and affected her mental health. We found the Council at fault for delaying responding to Miss X’s concerns about the temporary accommodation. The Council has already offered a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the London Borough of Islington Council (the Council) placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation. She said she reported problems to the Council, including when her landlord failed to complete important repairs. She also complained the Council did not properly consider the suitability of the accommodation. Miss X said she had long periods without contact or support from the Council which caused her distress and affected her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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

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

Suitability of accommodation

6. 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 temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
7. 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. The Council should complete the review within eight weeks. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)

Review of suitability

8. Councils must complete reviews of decisions relating to suitability within eight weeks of the date of the review request.
9. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Disrepair in temporary accommodation

10. The council should have satisfied itself that the accommodation is suitable before it places a homeless household in the accommodation. In the first instance, occupiers are expected to report any defects or disrepair to the landlord or managing agent. Councils should have an agreement with the landlord or agent which sets out the minimum property standards and timescales to deal with responsive repairs.
11. In most cases, it is unlikely we would find fault if a council advised the applicant to tell the landlord or agent about issues of disrepair in the first instance. But if the landlord or agent fails to respond, or does not inspect the property and arrange for works to be done in a reasonable time, the applicant may then contact the council. The council should then liaise with the landlord or managing agent to get necessary repairs done and check works have been satisfactorily completed.
12. If there is persistent or recurring disrepair which has not been remedied by the landlord or agent, we would expect the council to be pro-active and investigate. It should also consider whether the extent of the disrepair means the property is not suitable. The council is responsible for the actions of providers of interim or temporary accommodation because they are acting on its behalf.

What happened

13. Miss X was living in temporary shared accommodation provided by the Council following a homelessness application. She says she contacted her landlord in December 2024 to report damage to her bedroom door which meant she could no longer lock the door. She also reported concerns about hygiene and smells in the property. She also says she reported her concerns to the Council in February 2025.
14. Miss X complained to the Council in March 2025. She said the landlord had not repaired her door or addressed her other concerns. The Council asked Miss X to complete a form to request a formal review of the suitability of the accommodation. It said it also contacted her landlord about the repair and the other concerns. Miss X said she returned the completed form and photographs of the broken door in late March 2025, but the Council said it did not receive this.
15. The Council contacted Miss X’s landlord again in April 2025. Miss X contacted the Council about her complaint and resent the completed suitability form. The Council responded to Miss X’s stage one complaint in late April 2025. It said it had contacted Miss X’s landlord and apologised for the delay in responding to her concerns. It also apologised for losing her suitability review form. It offered Miss X a symbolic payment in recognition of the delays, inconvenience and distress caused. Miss X made a stage two complaint.
16. Following an unrelated event in May 2025, Miss X moved in with a family member in June 2025. She said the bedroom door was still broken when she moved out of the temporary accommodation. The Council wrote to Miss X in July 2025 with an offer of alternative accommodation.
17. The Council responded to Miss X’s stage two complaint in late July 2025. It apologised for the delay responding to her complaint but gave the same outcome as the stage one complaint and repeated its offer of a symbolic payment.

Analysis

18. The Council contacted Miss X’s landlord in March and April 2025 to ask them to address the issues raised, including the broken bedroom door. However, there is no evidence the Council followed this up after April 2025 to ensure the repair was done. This was fault by the Council.
19. Miss X lived in shared accommodation and said the broken door meant she could not secure her private room. This caused her anxiety and distress, particularly given the length of time the issue remained unresolved. Although there is no evidence of anyone entering her room, the inability to secure her personal living space was an avoidable source of distress.
20. Miss X said she contacted the Council in February 2025 to raise concerns, including about the suitability of the accommodation. She returned the Council’s form, requesting a review of the suitability of the accommodation, in March 2025. The Council said it lost the original form, so she had to resend it in April 2025. The Council should have completed a suitability review within eight weeks. There is no evidence the Council completed this review, which was fault. Miss X then moved out of the temporary accommodation around 19 weeks after she first reported concerns to the Council.
21. The Council should have completed a suitability review at least by late May 2025, eight weeks after it received Miss X’s first suitability review request form. Miss X moved out of the property around three weeks later. The failure to complete the review, and failure to follow up the repair with the landlord, caused her frustration and distress. However, given the relatively short time involved, I do not consider these faults have caused Miss X significant injustice.
22. The Council has accepted fault for losing Miss X’s original review request form. It also recognised there was delay responding to her complaint. These were faults which caused Miss X avoidable uncertainty and frustration. The Council has apologised and offered to pay Miss X a symbolic payment of £300. I consider this to be a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Action

23. I recommend, within one month of the final decision, the Council should:
• pay Miss X £300 in recognition of the fault and injustice caused.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman