Summary: The Council was at fault. It delayed carrying out a review of the suitability of Ms Y’s temporary accommodation and communicated poorly. This caused Ms Y frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and pay Ms Y a symbolic payment. The Council has already put some service improvements in place and will also make a new one.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained on Ms Y’s behalf about several unsuitable temporary accommodation placements arranged by the Council for Ms Y and her child. She said the accommodation put her and her child at risk of harm impacting on their health and the Council ignored her concerns.

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. 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 investigated

5. I investigated Ms Y’s complaint between December 2024 when she first moved into the accommodation she complained to the Council about and early April 2026 when Ms Y received the Council’s suitability review decision and had appeal rights to the county court.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms Y and her representative Ms X and spoke to Ms X on the telephone. I considered evidence provided by the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance and our guidance on remedies published on our website.
7. Ms X, Ms Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

8. 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.

Interim accommodation and temporary accommodation

9. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
10. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
11. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
12. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.

Review rights, timescale and right of appeal

13. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified 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.
14. Councils must complete reviews of the suitability of accommodation within 56 days of the date of the review request. This period can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
15. 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)

Council complaints policy

16. The Council follows a two-stage complaints process, as follows:
• Stage one – the relevant service team would investigate and respond within 20 working days.
• Stage two – a senior officer or manager not involved with the stage one response would review the complaint and provide a final response within 20 working days.

What happened

Background

17. In 2024 Ms Y submitted a homelessness application to the Council. The Council accepted her application, accepted it owed her the relief duty, issued Ms Y’s personalised housing plan (PHP) and arranged several interim accommodation placements for Ms Y and her child.

Early December 2024 onwards

18. In early December 2024 the Council arranged new interim accommodation for Ms Y and her child, Accommodation 1.
19. In early February 2025 Ms Y contacted the Council and reported damp and mould at Accommodation 1. Ms Y provided pictures of the mould and said it also affected the property’s electrics.
20. In mid-February 2025 the Council asked the managing agent for Accommodation 1 to investigate Ms Y’s concerns including the mould and electrics.
21. In late February 2025 Ms Y complained to the Council. She said Accommodation 1 was severely affected by mould, it was uninhabitable and the damp was affecting both her and her child’s health. She said she had previously reported the issue to the Council with no action taken.
22. In mid-March 2025 the Council sent Ms Y its stage one complaint response. It said it was disappointed the managing agents of Accommodation 1 had not resolved Ms Y’s concerns. It said it had arranged an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) to carry out an inspection and a report of the findings would be sent to the managing agents explaining any work that needed completing with timescales. It said it would keep Ms Y updated on progress.
23. The next day the EHO inspected Accommodation 1 and identified category 2 hazards. The report said the property suffered from severe condensation and mould and that needed investigating. The report said there was evidence the property was unsuitable because of the severe condensation, mould and damp unless there was further investigation and work listed was carried out.
24. In mid-March 2025 the Council sent Ms Y a decision letter and accepted the main housing duty. Ms Y remained living at Accommodation 1.
25. In early April 2024 the managing agent emailed the Council and said it had tried to inspect the mould and damp in Accommodation 1 three times but was refused entry. Ms Y disputed this. The managing agents said Ms Y was drying clothes inside the property causing excess condensation and gave advice to Ms Y to stop which it said she ignored. When I spoke to Ms X on the telephone she told me Ms Y allowed access to the property but would not allow them to carry out the remedial works whilst Ms Y and her child were staying at the property due to health concerns and she wanted another property to live in which was refused. The Council emailed Ms Y to explain she needed to allow access to her property. Ms Y emailed the Council the same day and said she was not drying clothes inside the property and the condensation was caused by the ineffective heating.
26. In early April 2025 Ms Y asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints process.
27. In mid-May 2025 the Council sent Ms Y a letter and offered her temporary accommodation, Accommodation 2, a self-contained flat with open plan living and no separate bedroom. Ms Y accepted the offer of living at Accommodation 2. The following day Ms Y made a suitability review request to the Council. She said Accommodation 2 was unsuitable for their needs. The Council acknowledged the request in early June 2025.
28. Two days later the Council sent Ms Y its final complaint response. It apologised for the delay in responding at stage two of its complaints process. It said the delay in the Accommodation 1 managing agents accessing the property meant a delay in carrying out the works and requested Ms Y was rehoused. It provided Ms Y with a copy of the EHO report. It apologised Accommodation 1 was unsuitable but was satisfied the Council acted within a reasonable time to address the issues. It said Ms Y had now been offered suitable alternative accommodation and her complaint was not upheld. The Council signposted Ms Y to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
29. In mid-June 2025 a Council reviewing officer contacted Ms Y about her review request. Ms Y told them she had no hot water or washing machine. In early July 2025 Ms Y asked the reviewing officer for an update and they apologised for the delay in considering her suitability review request and said the team was busy but they would try and complete it within 56 days. The Council officer forwarded Ms Y’s water and washing machine issues to the management agents.
30. In late July 2025 a Health Visitor wrote to the Council raising concerns about Ms Y’s Accommodation 2 property including antisocial behaviour, concerns about the lack of hot water and washing machine, issues with the shower flooding, limited play space for Ms Y’s child and problems to accommodate family support after Ms Y’s had surgery. Between summer 2025 and November 2025 the Council received several letters about Ms Y’s health concerns. Ms Y complained to us.
31. In early October 2025 Ms Y asked the Council for an update on her suitability review request. Ms Y’s first Council reviewing officer left the Council and a new Council reviewing officer said they would consider her request.
32. In response to our enquiries the Council said in early January 2026 Ms Y submitted a new suitability review request to the Council under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 challenging the suitability of the accommodation at Accommodation 2. Ms X told me Ms Y submitted a second request because the Council had not completed her first request and the reviewing officer had left the Council. Ms Y raised concerns about overcrowding and similar issues raised by the health visitor in July 2025 and fire alarm interference. The Council asked Ms Y for supporting evidence. Ms Y health concerns continued.
33. The Council received independent medical advice in early February 2026. The report concluded Accommodation 2 was suitable on medical grounds, noting that issues raised were not primarily medical matters. It concluded there was no evidence Accommodation 2 was unsafe for Ms Y and her child.
34. In late March 2026 the Council issued a Regulation 7 proposed Decision (Section 202 Notice) to Ms Y. It set out the Council’s initial finding that Accommodation 2 remained suitable. It said all evidence was considered including the medical letters, health visitor report, independent medical advice and Ms Y’s comments. The Council gave Ms Y 14 days to make further representations.
35. In early April 2026 the Council issued its final review decision. The Council's original decision was upheld in full confirming Accommodation 2 was suitable at the time of the offer in mid-May 2025 and remained suitable. The Council gave Ms Y information about her right to appeal to the county court under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 within 21 days of notification. Ms Y did not appeal to the county court. Ms X said that was because she did not have legal help to appeal.

My findings

Accommodation 1

36. The Council acted in a timely manner when Ms Y raised concerns by asking the managing agent to investigate and address them. When the Council became aware the managing agents had not resolved the issues a Council EHO inspected the property, which was appropriate. The inspection indicated further investigation and works were needed.
37. Ms Y did not allow access for further investigation or works at Accommodation 1 because she argued the Council should have arranged alternative accommodation whilst this was done, but the Council had refused this. This caused a delay in resolving the matter. Since the Council was not required to provide alternative accommodation in these circumstances, the delay was not due to Council fault. The Council’s final complaint response indicated Accommodation 1 was unsuitable and it arranged Accommodation 2 which was two months after the EHO inspection. The evidence shows the Council tried to resolve Ms Y’s issue and there was no undue delay in arranging Accommodation 2. The Council was not at fault.

Accommodation 2

38. The Council had 56 days to complete Ms Y’s suitability review from her request date of mid-May 2025, which means it should have been completed by mid-July 2025. It did not carry out a review or make a decision at that point, which was fault.
39. Ms Y made a second request in early 2026. The Council considered medical advice and further information from Ms Y in early 2026 and decided in early April 2026 that Accommodation 2 was suitable. There was no undue delay in carrying out the review at this stage, but Ms Y waited approximately nine months overall for an outcome, which caused her frustration and uncertainty.
40. Ms Y had the right to appeal to the county court if she disagreed with the Council’s decision. It was reasonable for Ms Y to use her appeal rights as only the court could decide if Accommodation 2 was legally unsuitable. Even if we had decided it was not reasonable to appeal, there was no fault in the Council’s decision-making so there are no grounds for asking the Council to carry out a further review.

Complaints handling

41. Ms Y escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints process in early April 2025. The Council did not issue Ms Y with its final response until early June 2025 which was a delay of approximately one month. The Council has already apologised which remedied any injustice caused to her. The Council was at fault when it signposted Ms Y to the Housing Ombudsman Service but it did not cause Ms Y a significant injustice because she still complained to us.

Service improvements

42. The Ombudsman has already made service recommendations to this Council to prevent future injustice from similar fault on similar cases. The Council has agreed to monitor and comply with statutory deadlines of completing suitability reviews, issue suitability review decisions advising applicants of their review rights, and adhere to its published complaint handling timescales. It has also agreed to remind staff of the importance to regularly communicate with service users and respond to queries. On this basis no further recommendations were needed about these issues.

Action

43. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
1. apologise and pay Ms Y £200 to acknowledge her frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay in carrying out a review of the suitability of Ms Y’s temporary accommodation and poor communication. 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.
2. remind relevant staff of the guidance on our website about which Ombudsman to refer to for complaints about housing.
44. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Decision

45. I have completed this investigation finding fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused and prevent reoccurrence of the fault. The Council has already put some service improvements in place.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman