Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed taking action to provide alternative temporary accommodation despite accepting it was unsuitable in December 2024. The Council failed to formally communicate its decision, its change of view and failed to give Ms X her right of appeal. This meant Ms X and her family lived in unsuitable accommodation for 10 months longer than she should have affecting their health and wellbeing. A financial remedy for the injustice caused is agreed.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council delayed taking action to provide alternative temporary accommodation despite accepting it was unsuitable in December 2024.
2. Ms X says her family lived in a damp and mouldy property which affected their health and wellbeing.

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 Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms 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

Review rights

7. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Review procedure

8. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)

Review timescale and right of appeal

Councils must complete reviews of the suitability of accommodation within eight weeks of the date of the review request. This period can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.

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)

Key facts

10. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
11. The Council accepted it owed Ms X the main housing duty under homelessness legislation in March 2024. In October, Ms X reported problems with damp and mould to the managing agent. It carried out an inspection and found the trickle vents at the property were closed. The managing agent offered advice to Ms X and provided a dehumidifier.
12. In December Ms X reported worsening conditions to the managing agent and also made a formal complaint to the Council. She said her belongings were affected with mould and her children were experiencing health problems including wheezing and respiratory symptoms. Ms X visited the Council offices on 18 December and a suitability assessment was carried out.
13. On 30 December a housing officer sent an email to Ms X saying the Council had completed the suitability assessment which had been approved. The officer said the case would now be passed to the department that handles the waiting list for clients in her position. The Council says that the suitability assessment was completed on 23 January but there is no evidence to show this decision was formally communicated to Ms X.
14. The Council continued to communicate with the managing agents and further visits were carried out. In March 2025, the Council completed its own inspection and advised the managing agents to carry out a mould wash at the property. This was completed on 10 April.
15. Ms X continued to raise complaints about mould in the property saying the treatment had not worked. The Council asked the managing agent to urgently address the issue. Further visits by the managing agent and Council took place in September 2025. The managing agent reported there was no evidence of mould or damp amounting to a statutory hazard. However, following an occupancy check on 23 October, the Council completed a further suitability assessment and decided the property was not suitable.
16. The Council offered Ms X alternative accommodation on 30 October which she moved into on 6 November.

Analysis

17. The information provided shows Ms X requested a suitability review in December 2024 and the Council made a decision which it informally communicated to her by email. However, it never issued a formal written decision which included rights of appeal. This is fault.
18. The Council says the email of 30 December was sent before the assessment process had been fully concluded. It says it was still in the process of gathering information from the managing agents about Ms X’s concerns. It says it must base a suitability decision on the current condition of the property supported by inspection findings and clarification from the managing agents. It says that as the managing agents were actively addressing the issues, the Council considered it necessary to await the outcome before finalising any decision about alternative accommodation.
19. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me the suitability review was completed on 23 January 2025 and the property was found to be unsuitable. I therefore consider the Council had taken a view. There was no indication the review had not been formally concluded beyond the failure to issue a formal decision. If the Council had changed its view then it should have sent a decision to Ms X explaining this and detailing how she could challenge the decision. The Council did not do this.
20. While there is some evidence of works being carried out to try to resolve the mould issues, it was not successful and by October 2025 the Council offered Ms X alternative accommodation. The Council says the officer who determined the property was unsuitable in January 2025 did not provide reasons for approving the suitability assessment. However, the issues reported have remained the same and the only works carried out were for mould and damp. Therefore, on balance, I am satisfied the reasons for offering alternative accommodation in October 2025 were the same as the reasons for accepting it was unsuitable in January 2025 and that any remedial works carried out in that period did not significantly change the situation.
21. The Council’s failure to send Ms X a formal notification of its suitability assessment decision which included her rights of appeal is fault. She had been told she would be offered another property in December 2024 and there is nothing to suggest the Council ever communicated with Ms X that this was not going to happen. I therefore consider Ms X remained in unsuitable accommodation for 10 months longer than she should have.
22. I am recommending a financial remedy based on our published guidance on remedies which states that where someone has been deprived of suitable accommodation we will recommend a payment of between £150 to £350 per month. In this case, the family were unable to use one bedroom meaning all four children were sleeping in one room. I therefore consider a payment in the middle of the range is appropriate.

Back to top

Action

23. To remedy the injustice caused as a result of the fault identified above, the Council will, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:
• Apologise to Ms 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 I have recommended;
• Make Ms X a symbolic payment of £2,500 to recognise that she remained in unsuitable accommodation for 10 months longer than she should have.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
25. Over the past two years we have issued several decisions finding fault with housing services provided by the Council and made service improvement recommendations. As this includes actions relating to suitability review assessments, there is no need to make further recommendations.

Back to top

Decision

26. 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