Summary: The Council was at fault for the time taken to carry out a suitability review and for providing incorrect information about how to challenge this decision. The Council was also at fault for leaving Mr X’s family in accommodation for two months after it decided the accommodation was unsuitable. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and ensure its review letters contained the correct information.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council handled a review into the suitability of his temporary accommodation. Mr X also complains the Council left his family in unsuitable temporary accommodation for several years.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I have not investigated events before June 2024, when Mr X was offered temporary accommodation. This is because too much time has passed and I can see no good reasons why Mr X could not have brought his concerns about how the Council was handling his homelessness case or concerns about his accommodation to us sooner.
7. I have ended my investigation in January 2026, when Mr X was offered alternative temporary accommodation. Any concerns Mr X has with this accommodation he would need to raise with the Council in the first instance.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. 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

Law and guidance

10. 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 is available for their occupation. 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)
11. 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)
12. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified about 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.
13. 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)
14. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of the date of the review request. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing. 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)
15. If the council agrees the accommodation is unsuitable, it owes an immediate, non-deferrable and unqualified duty to provide suitable accommodation (Elkundi, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601).

What happened

16. Mr X and his family lived in temporary accommodation after the Council decided it owed them the main housing duty.
17. In early June 2024, the Council offered Mr X alternative temporary accommodation. The Council said it believed this was suitable for Mr X’s family in terms of location and size.
18. Mr X accepted the property and collected the keys in mid-June 2024, however a few days later Mr X returned the keys and moved back into his previous temporary accommodation. Mr X wrote to the Council and asked it to review the suitability of the accommodation it offered. Mr X said the property had an overgrown garden and the rooms were too small. Mr X also raised concerns about his wife being able to manage the stairs whilst caring for a toddler and about the property having inadequate parking.
19. In late November 2024, the Council sent Mr X’s its review decision. The Council said it believed the property was suitable. The decision letter told Mr X if he disagreed he could ask for a review within 21 days. In mid-December 2024, Mr X asked the Council to review this decision that the property offered was suitable.
20. Mr X did not receive a response from the Council and followed this up several times in the early part of 2025. In June 2025, the Council responded to Mr X and sent him a further copy of its review decision from November 2024.
21. Mr X instructed the assistance of legal advisers and asked the Council to review the suitability of his current temporary accommodation in late September 2025.
22. In early October 2025, the Council got an occupational therapist to assess Mr X and his family and look at what type of properties were suitable for them. The occupational therapist recommended level access properties. In early November 2025, the Council decided Mr X’s current temporary accommodation was unsuitable due to medical and mobility needs. The Council told Mr X it would find him alternative temporary accommodation. In January 2026, the Council offered Mr X alternative temporary accommodation which he moved into.

Analysis

23. After the Council offered Mr X alternative temporary accommodation in June 2024, he asked the Council to review the suitability of this. The Council should have completed this review within 8 weeks, so by mid-August 2024. It took the Council until late November 2024 to complete the review. I cannot see from the case notes why it took the Council so long to make its decision. I also cannot see that the Council kept Mr X regularly updated and asked for extra time to carry out the review. This was fault. As a result Mr X had to wait much longer than he should have for the Council to complete the review into the suitability of the accommodation it offered.
24. When the Council did give Mr X its review decision in November 2024, it told him that if he disagreed with it he would need to ask for another review. This was fault. The Council should have told Mr X he needed to appeal in the county court if he wanted to disagree with this decision. As a result Mr X asked the Council for a further review. Had the Council given him the correct information he could have sought advice about challenging the decision in the courts. It was not until June 2025, over 6 months since Mr X asked the Council to review its November 2024 decision, that the Council responded to him.
25. In September 2025, Mr X’s legal adviser asked the Council to review the suitability of his current temporary accommodation. The Council completed the review within 8 weeks, however it decided that Mr X’s property was unsuitable. Following this it took the Council just over two months to provide Mr X with alternative accommodation. As a result Mr X and his family spent two months in accommodation the Council considered was unsuitable. Where we find a family has spent time in unsuitable accommodation our guidance on remedies recommends a monthly payment. In coming to a suitable figure I considered the families vulnerabilities.

Back to top

Agreed Action

26. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following:
• Apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by the above faults. 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 in my findings.
• Pay Mr X £250 to recognise the distress and uncertainty he experienced as a result of the delays carrying out the suitability review in to the property offered to him in June 2024 and for providing him with incorrect information about how to challenge this decision.
• Ensure that it’s review decision letters contain the correct paragraph at the end telling customers that they can challenge the decision in the county court, not by asking for a further review.
• Pay Mr X £500 to recognise the time spent in unsuitable temporary accommodation from November 2025 until January 2026. I have calculated this at £250 per month.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman