Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure remedy his injustice following a previous investigation by the Ombudsman about his unsuitable accommodation. We found the Council to be at fault because it did not provide a remedy for the additional time he lived in unsuitable accommodation. This caused distress and frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise, make an additional payment and take action to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mr X, a care leaver with care and support needs, complains about the Council’s failure to provide an adequate remedy for the time he was provided with unsuitable accommodation when became an adult. He says the Council failed to carry out an agreed recommendation from a previous investigation by the Ombudsman.
2. He says the Council’s failure to carry out a review of the suitability of his accommodation and provide an adequate remedy caused significant distress and frustration.
3. Mr X is represented by his advocate, Ms Y, in making this complaint.

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. 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)
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. 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. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about the suitability of his accommodation from when the Council accepted he was owed the main homelessness duty in April 2023. This is because a previous Ombudsman investigation (23 009 943) found the Council was at fault for not carrying out a review of the suitability of Mr X’s accommodation at this point.
8. I accept the Ombudsman did not specifically request the Council carry out a review of the suitability of Flat A in the previous decision. But it is my assessment that this was implied by the finding of fault about the failure to carry out a review of what was described as “emergency accommodation”, as well as the agreed recommendations.
9. The Council did not carry out a suitability review until April 2024. By this time Mr X had lived in emergency accommodation for over two years. In making this decision. I have also taken into account the Council has a duty to keep the matter of suitability under review. There is no evidence it did so in this case as set out later in this decision statement.
10. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about the suitability of accommodation before April 2023. This was supported living accommodation provided to Mr X while he was still a child. This is because I am satisfied this was dealt with satisfactorily by the previous Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. 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

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

13. 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.
14. If a 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 for them. 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)

Suitability of temporary accommodation

15. Temporary accommodation is accommodation provided to homeless applicants as part of a council’s main homelessness duty.
16. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
17. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. There is also a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
18. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is an ongoing duty. Councils must keep the issue of suitability under review (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.8)
19. If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. 

What happened

Contextual information – the previous Ombudsman investigation

20. When Mr X was 16 years old, the Council removed him from his mother’s care due to concerns about his wellbeing. Mr X has care and support needs. Accommodation was arranged by the Council’s children’s social care department.
21. The Council first placed Mr X in a bed and breakfast out of area, temporarily while it found a more permanent placement for him.
22. In August 2021, Mr X moved to what it described as, “emergency supported accommodation” (Flat A), still out of area. Mr X turned 18 in March 2022.
23. The Council moved Mr X to different emergency supported accommodation (Flat B) back within its local area in January 2023.
24. The unsuitability of Flats A and B, and the bed and breakfast accommodation, and their negative impact on Mr X was the subject of a complaint to the Council and then the Ombudsman in 2024. Whilst his complaint about this matter was upheld by the Council, the Ombudsman found Mr X’s personal injustice had not been properly remedied. The Ombudsman also raised concerns about the ongoing situation because Mr X may still be in living in unsuitable accommodation in Flat B. This was provided under housing legislation as an adult. In March 2024, the Council agreed to action the following recommendations made by the Ombudsman:

• Calculate a financial remedy amount based on £200 per week for every week Mr X was in bed and breakfast accommodation prior to turning 18 years old.
• Carry out a suitability review of Mr X’s current accommodation in line with his needs and meet with Mr X and his advocate to discuss any options open to him. If the Council identifies that the current accommodation is unsuitable, the Council should pay a financial remedy in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for unsuitable accommodation.

Events I have investigated

25. In March 2024, the Council offered to pay Mr X £1200. This was calculated as £200 for six weeks Mr X was in bed and breakfast accommodation in July and August 2021.
26. In April 2024, the Council carried out a suitability review of Flat B. This determined it was not suitable. He remained in Flat B until September 2024. In January 2025, the Council agreed to pay Mr X a further £1200 (£200 per month) to acknowledge this injustice experienced by Mr X between April 2024 and September 2024.
27. Shortly afterwards Mr X queried the Council’s failure to comply with the Ombudsman’s recommendations. He said the Council had not offered a remedy for the 25 months he spent in unsuitable accommodation from when he turned 18 (in March 2022) until April 2024. He also complained about the delay in carrying out a suitability review. When he did not receive a favourable response, he brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

The Council’s position

28. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council provided the following information that is relevant to my investigation.

• The Council accepted the main homelessness duty towards Mr X on 25 April 2023. Mr X was advised of his right to request a suitability review on this date.
• Mr X was notified of his right to bid on housing association properties with Band One priority.
• The Council did not consider it was the Ombudsman’s intention to pay additional compensation for a time period where it had not been established that the accommodation was unsuitable.
• Mr X did not request a suitability review until March 2024.
• Flat A was arranged by the Council’s children’s services department. The Council had already made a payment of £1200 to acknowledge its unsuitability.

Analysis

29. I have already explained why I have decided to investigate the Council’s failure to consider the suitability of a Flat A.
30. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me this was because Mr X did not specifically request a review of the suitability or Flat A. I accept he was notified of this right to request a review or accommodation that was offered to him in the homelessness decision letter in 2023. But in my view, this does not absolve the Council of fault.
31. This was a standard letter sent to all homelessness applicants. It did not specifically notify Mr X of his right to request a review of Flat A. Nor did this letter inform Mr X that Flat A was now classed as temporary accommodation and as such, attracted a right of review. Flat A was provided as emergency accommodation while Mr X was still a child. I do not consider it was reasonable to expect Mr X to have understood he had a right to request a review under the homelessness legislation unless this was made clear. This has been confirmed by Ms Y, who is clear in her recollection that neither her, or Mr X, were told about the right to request a review of Flat A’s suitability under the homelessness legislation.
32. However, it was evident from correspondence I have seen between the Council and Ms Y that Mr X considered Flat A to unsuitable from the outset. The case records show Flat A was only ever meant to be a very short-term measure. It was described by the Council as emergency accommodation, yet he remained there for well over a year.
33. When he first moved there in August 2021, Mr X had already been asked to leave by his previous accommodation, and it is not in dispute that the intention was for Mr X to move back to his local area as soon as possible. In correspondence with Ms Y in 2023, the landlord of Flat A stated, “Flat A is a very short term stay for residents and ideally they should not stay more than two nights in this property”. I have seen no evidence the Council’s housing department carried out a review of Flat A’s suitability when it accepted the main homelessness duty.
34. It is also clear from the case records that Mr X, a vulnerable care leaver, with both an Education, Health and Care Plan and assessed eligible care and support needs, was struggling to cope at Flat A and frequently asked to be moved.
35. I am satisfied this should have prompted the Council to carry out a suitability review, regardless of whether this was specifically requested by Mr X. The Council had a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review, and to respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability. I would have expected to see some records to demonstrate the Council’s view on whether it considered Flat A remained suitable in light of the concerns raised by Mr X and his advocate. There is no evidence of this. This is fault.
36. Had the Council carried out a suitability assessment in April 2023 of Flat A when it should have, on balance, given its later decision that Flat B was unsuitable, it is likely it would have decided that Flat A was also unsuitable at this time. Flat A and Flat B were similar types of accommodation. In reaching this conclusion, I have taken into consideration the reasons given for Flat B’s unsuitability. This stated Mr X was:

• vulnerable in a shared environment due to the possible risk of exploitation;
• unable to function in a shared environment and manage daily tasks due to anxieties and diagnosis of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder; and
• recommended to have self-contained temp accommodation

37. It my overall assessment that the Council’s fault meant Mr X lived in unsuitable accommodation between April 2023 to September 2024. This caused Mr X significant distress and frustration.
38. I am satisfied that the Council has already provided a suitable remedy for the time spent in Flat B from when it carried out the suitability review in April 2024 to when he moved from Flat B in September 2024.
39. However, I find the Council was at fault for only providing a remedy for Mr X’s time spent in unsuitable accommodation in Flat B, once he was owed the main homelessness duty. The Council has not provided any evidence to persuade me Flat B was at any time suitable accommodation for Mr X.
40. Our guidance on remedies takes the view that where someone has been deprived of suitable accommodation, we will usually recommend a payment between £150 to £350 a month. We consider each complaint on its merits and consider the impact the fault had on the person making the complaint and their family. In the circumstances of this case, I consider £200 a month to be appropriate

Back to top

Agreed action

41. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mr X by the faults I have identified, the Council agreed to take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision.
1. Apologise to Mr X for the distress and frustration caused to her by the identified fault, and for the time spent living in unsuitable accommodation. This apology should be in accordance with our guidance Making an effective apology.
2. Pay Mr X £2000 to acknowledge the injustice caused by the identified fault and time spent living in unsuitable accommodation. This represents the 12 months from April 2023 to April 2024 at £200 per month.
3. Pay Mr X £250 as a symbolic payment to acknowledge his distress and frustration caused by the Council’s failure to carry out a suitability review before April 2024.
4. For the avoidance of doubt, these payments are in addition to the payments previously offered and refused by Mr X. The Council should contact Mr X and ask if he is now willing to accept these payments. The Council should take into account Mr X’s current vulnerability when making the arrangement pay Mr X.
5. Issue a briefing to relevant staff to remind them of the Council’s duty to keep suitability under review and recognise the types of communications from service users which should trigger the Council to carry out a review of suitability.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice to Mr X and to improve its service. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman