Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to mitigate his homelessness when he faced eviction due to unaffordable rent increases then it placed his family in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation. The Council kept Mr X’s family in unsuitable accommodation for 16 weeks longer than allowed causing distress and affecting the family’s wellbeing. A financial remedy for the injustice caused is agreed.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to mitigate his homelessness when he faced eviction due to unaffordable rent increases and it then placed his family in bed and breakfast accommodation for five months.
2. Mr X says this caused distress and affected the wellbeing of the whole family.

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 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

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.

The prevention duty

8. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

9. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

10. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Suitability of accommodation

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 accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
12. 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)
13. Wherever possible, Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.33)
14. Bed and breakfast (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)

Key facts

15. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
16. Mr X contacted the Council in June 2024 explaining his landlord had indicated he would increase his rent from £1,350 to £1,500 per month. Mr X told the Council this was unaffordable and asked for assistance to prevent homelessness. I note that in 2023 the Council assisted Mr X after he received a section 21 notice due to a rent increase that he could not afford. In 2023 the Council accepted a rent increase to £1,350 was not affordable.
17. The Council accepted a prevention duty under the homelessness reduction act, produced a personal housing plan (PHP) and contacted the landlord. The Council did not receive any response from the landlord to its approaches to try and prevent possession and eviction from the property.
18. Mr X wrote to the Council on 30 December explaining his family’s circumstances including that his elderly parents are unable to manage stairs due to mobility issues.
19. On 16 January 2025 the Council provided temporary accommodation for the family at a hotel. In January and February, Mr X wrote to the Council saying the temporary accommodation was not suitable and requesting the Council provide suitable accommodation as well as re-banding his housing priority. The Council told Mr X that no alternative accommodation was currently available.
20. The Council offered the family alternative accommodation in March but this was at another hotel. Mr X again wrote to the Council saying his family had been placed in two rooms located far apart and separated by a narrow corridor which was not appropriate. He also mentioned a lack of suitable cooking facilities and asked the Council to provide a three bedroom house.
21. On 21 March Mr X reported a problem with the lift affecting his parents. The Council asked him to provide medical evidence to show that they were unable to manage stairs.
22. The Council wrote to Mr X on 27 March explaining the relief duty had ended and that it now owed him the main housing duty. In April Mr X wrote again to the Council asking it to urgently reassess his housing priority and banding and explaining why the current accommodation was not suitable. The Council accepted this as a request for a review of the suitability of the accommodation.
23. A file note dated 28 April requests a visit to see Mr X to explain his housing options to him. It said that a request to do this had been made on 17 March but there were no updates on the system to suggest this had happened. It notes that there are over 100 families in hotels and many had been accommodated for much longer than Mr X’s family despite the Council seeking alternatives.
24. Following the visit, Mr X’s family were moved to rooms on the ground floor. Mr X wrote to the Council thanking it for this change but also pointing out there were other issues it has still not addressed including the fact the family has no cooking facilities and it has been in bed and breakfast accommodation for over four months despite the law saying six weeks should be the maximum time.
25. On 11 June the Council made Mr X the offer of a three bedroom private rented ground floor flat to end its homelessness duty. It explained it would pay the rent deposit as well as £150 per month for 24 months to cover a shortfall in the rent. It said the rent would therefore be £1,350 per month and that Mr X’s income and expenditure form indicated it was affordable.
26. Mr X said he would accept the offer even though he was unsure if it was affordable. Further correspondence between the Council and Mr X raised issues about why his parents’ income was included as this was benefits and so not guaranteed as well as saying they may not remain in the country.
27. The family moved into the new accommodation on 18 June. The following day the Council wrote to Mr X saying it had cancelled his suitability review as it was now redundant as alternative accommodation had been secured. The Council also wrote to Mr X ending the main housing duty and explaining Mr X’s right of review. Mr X wrote to the Council asking it to review the decision. It is my understanding the Council upheld the decision to discharge the main housing duty with the offer it made.

Analysis

28. Mr X and his family moved into bed and breakfast accommodation on 16 January 2025 and moved out on 18 June 2025. As Mr X has correctly pointed out, the law says that councils should only house families with children in bed and breakfast accommodation where no other accommodation is available for occupation and then only for a maximum of six weeks.
29. In response to our enquiries, the Council says it does not use extended hotel stays as a matter of policy but as a last resort. It says that using hotels, while not ideal, ensures families have a place to stay rather than face street homelessness. It says it is facing significant challenges and is working to procure more properties to use as temporary accommodation but this takes time.
30. While it is acknowledged the Council is facing problems procuring properties, the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 is not guidance but is the law. Mr X and his family were in bed and breakfast accommodation for 16 weeks longer than allowed. This is fault. Mr X contacted the Council regularly about this but the Council did not move him seeming to accept the problem and say other families had been there longer. As the family were in unsuitable accommodation for longer than the law allows, I am recommending a financial remedy of £200 per week for each week after the six week maximum.
31. In respect of the way the Council handled Mr X’s homelessness application, I am satisfied it followed the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 appropriately. There is evidence it accepted the prevention, relief and main duty at the appropriate times and provided interim and temporary accommodation. I have already dealt with the issue of the suitability of that accommodation.
32. Mr X requested a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation provided by the Council and two months later the Council cancelled the review after it ended the main housing duty because Mr X accepted alternative accommodation. While I understand Mr X’s frustration that the review was not completed, I am not persuaded this caused him a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman considering this further. The purpose of the review was to look at the suitability of the accommodation provided and I have found it was unsuitable and recommended a payment to recognise this.
33. Mr X has also raised concerns about the affordability of his current accommodation. I am satisfied the Council has properly considered this. It made a decision based on the current income of family members and has explained this is based on guidance. While I note Mr X’s comment that his father’s benefit payments are subject to reassessment, I would not criticise the Council’s response which notes any reduction is speculative. The Council has said that it considers the accommodation would remain affordable even if part of the benefit income was lost.
34. Mr X also mentions the Children Act and safeguarding. In response to our enquiries, the Council has explained that it took into consideration the distance to his child’s school when making the offer of alternative accommodation and the discharge of the main housing duty. It also says that there were vacancies at schools within approximately 30 minutes walking time from the property and that this information was provided to Mr X. I am not persuaded there was fault in respect of Children Act and safeguarding duties.

Back to top

Action

35. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr X as a result of the fault identified in this case the Council will, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:
• Apologise to Mr X for the fault identified. 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:
• Make Mr X a symbolic payment of £ 3,200 to recognise the time spent in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation (16 weeks x £200);
• Review the procurement policy to ensure the Council is doing all it can to increase the supply of accommodation for use as temporary and interim accommodation for families and report progress on this to the relevant committee.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman