Summary: Ms B complained that the Council offered her temporary accommodation it knew to be unsuitable, delayed in carrying out a suitability review and failed to deal with her complaints properly. We found fault with the Council’s actions which meant Ms B lived in unsuitable accommodation for five months longer than necessary. We have asked the Council to apologise to Ms B and make a symbolic payment to her. It has already improved its procedures for the future.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained that the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) in respect of her temporary accommodation;
• failed to ensure the property was suitable for Ms B and her children (one of whom has complex needs) before they moved in;
• failed to ensure a mice infestation of which the Council was previously aware had been resolved;
• failed to carry out a proper review of the suitability of the accommodation until December 2024, eight months after Ms B moved in and asked for a review; and
• delayed in finding suitable accommodation for Ms B once it decided the property was unsuitable.
2. These failings caused distress and inconvenience to Ms B as she and her children had to live in unsuitable conditions for much longer than was necessary.

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

7. 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)
8. 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) A council must complete the review within eight weeks.

What happened

9. Ms B was homeless and the Council placed in temporary accommodation in April 2024. Previous tenants of the property had reported problems with blocked drainage, lack of ventilation, rodent infestations and small space for a family. A property survey in November 2022 noted defective drainage and another survey in August 2023 highlighted problems with ventilation and mould.
10. Ms B immediately raised concerns about the suitability of the property due to its small size, poor condition and mice infestation. She also requested a housing needs assessment for one of her children who had health conditions.
11. The Council received the suitability request on 8 May 2024. At the end of May, Ms B complained about mice, foxes in the garden and lack of ventilation.
12. The Council noted on 12 June that a non-statutory review request had been received and acknowledged.
13. Ms B’s social worker sent an email to the Council saying the property was unsuitable due to its small size, damp and the needs of one of the children.
14. Following several chasers, the Council wrote to Ms B on 24 July to say the property was suitable. On 7 August Ms B requested a review of the decision and instructed solicitors, who also requested a review. She also complained. The Council responded on 19 August saying that the decision had not been a statutory review under section 202 of the Housing Act, but a non-statutory review was open. Ms B’s solicitor challenged this response and on 23 August the Council agreed that Ms B was entitled to a statutory review under section 202. It apologised for the confusion.
15. On 5 September the Council responded to the complaint at stage one. It said the non-statutory review had found the property was suitable and a formal review of suitability was in progress. It did not uphold the complaint.
16. On 18 September the Council confirmed in writing that it would be carrying out a statutory review but asked for an 8-week extension due to a backlog of work. It requested a property inspection.
17. Ms B’s social worker sent another letter highlighting the unsuitability of the property.
18. On 7 November the solicitor sent a copy of an occupational therapist’s report it had obtained. This said there was evidence of mice in the property, and this had been a problem for a previous tenant. There was also evidence of mould in the bedrooms and bathroom, inadequate ventilation, a dangerous and insecure garden and it was away from Ms B’s support network.
19. The Council requested an urgent property inspection, which was done on 5 December. The surveyor noted this property had been visited twice before and the same defects had been noted including mice, mould and poor ventilation. The report said the property was unsuitable for the family and noted an urgent move was needed. The Council also served a disrepair notice on the landlord.
20. On 23 December the Council completed a suitability review and concluded the property was unsuitable due to its condition and in particular was not suitable for Ms B’s child with complex needs.
21. In mid-January 2025 the Council offered Ms B alternative temporary accommodation. She moved in on 1 February. She escalated her complaint to stage two on 6 February.
22. The Council replied on 13 March. It acknowledged delays in the process but said they did not affect the final outcome and did not uphold the complaint. The complaint letter only provided details of the Housing Ombudsman if Ms B wished to pursue her complaint.
23. In response to an earlier draft of my decision the Council explained this was an old case and it had since launched a Service Transformation Programme over the next year, to address both supply and demand for accommodation. This involves reviewing both its Placement policy and Housing Needs Assessment process. It is also creating its own in-house review team to improve its performance in this area. It has also highlighted previous information supplied to us that it has created a system for flagging unsuitable properties on its system until they have been inspected as suitable for use.

Findings

Delay

24. The Council should have carried out a statutory review under section 202 of the Housing Act when Miss B requested one on May 2024. It failed to do so and carried out an inadequate non-statutory review in July 2024 without properly investigating the condition of the property. Despite agreeing in August 2024 that it should have carried out a section 202 review it did not complete the review until 24 December 2024, seven months after Ms B had requested one. This was avoidable delay which caused Ms B injustice as she had to live in unsuitable accommodation for months longer than was necessary. If the Council had carried out the correct review in May 2024 without delay, it is likely she would have moved to alternative accommodation by the end of July 2024; so she lived in unsuitable accommodation for five months longer than she should have done.
25. There was no delay in finding Ms B a property once it decided her current accommodation was unsuitable: it found a property within three weeks.

Suitability of the property as temporary accommodation

26. There was evidence from the Occupational Therapist and from the Council’s own property surveyors that defects had been highlighted in the property in 2022 and 2023. There is no evidence that the condition of the property was considered either generally or in respect of the needs of Ms B’s children before the Council offered it to her. Given the previous surveys, this was fault which caused Ms B uncertainty as to whether she should have been offered the property at all.

Complaint-handling

27. Both complaint responses were inadequate. They should have picked up that Ms B was entitled to a statutory review of suitability under section 202 of the Housing Act and that this did cause her injustice as she had to live in unsuitable accommodation for much longer than was necessary.

Back to top

Action

28. In recognition of the injustice caused to Ms B I recommended the Council within one month of the date of my final decision:
• apologises to Ms B and makes a symbolic payment of £1375 (5 months @£275 per month).
29. The Council has agreed to this recommendation. Given the information it has supplied regarding service improvements I have not made any recommendations in this area.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman