Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to comply with its statutory duties when it made him homeless due to disrepair in his flat. We find the Council at fault for a delay in accepting the main housing duty and for failing to complete a suitability review. The faults caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to comply with its statutory duties when it made him homeless due to disrepair in his flat. Specifically, Mr X says the Council:
• Left him for a prolonged period in hotel accommodation without basic living facilities.
• Failed to provide suitable temporary accommodation.
• Failed to issue a final duty letter.

Mr X told us being left in unsuitable accommodation for so long has significantly impacted his mental and physical health. Mr X would like the Council to acknowledge the harm caused by its failures, apologise and ensure the same failures are not repeated for others.

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. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. 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

Legal and administrative background

6. 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.
7. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
8. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

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)
10. The relief duty usually lasts for 56 days. Councils should be able to decide whether they owe the main housing duty on day 57 after accepting the relief duty.

The main housing duty

11. 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).

Suitability of accommodation

12. There is a legal duty for authorities to ensure any accommodation provided under a homelessness duty is “suitable” for the applicant and household members (Section 206 of the Act).
13. In deciding whether accommodation is suitable, authorities must have regard to the slum clearance, overcrowding and HMO provisions of the Housing Act 1985 and Parts 1 to 4 of the Housing Act 2004 (section 210). 
14. Councils must have regard to the specific needs of the applicant due to any medical condition or disability. The council should also have regard to the affordability of the accommodation.
15. Councils have a duty to keep the suitability of accommodation under review. An applicant may ask a council to reconsider the suitability of their current temporary accommodation if their circumstances change (for example, if their medical or disability-related needs change or there is an increase in the size of the household). The council should then make a new suitability decision. (R(B) v Redbridge LBC [2019] EWHC 250 (Admin))

Review rights

16. Homeless applicants may request a review, within 21 days of being notified of the decision, 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).

Review procedure

17. 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)
18. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of the date of the review request.
19. 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)

What happened

20. Prior to February 2025, Mr X was living in private rented accommodation.
21. In February 2025, a prohibition order was issued by the Council, meaning Mr X had to leave his accommodation by the second week of March 2025, due to ongoing and significant disrepair at the property.
22. The following day, Mr X submitted a homelessness application to the Council. Mr X’s application detailed both physical and mental health issues. Council records show Mr X had explained he had limited mobility due to a knee injury, however Mr X had confirmed he could manage a small number of stairs and did not require any adaptations.
23. The Council assessed Mr X’s application and, towards the end of February, accepted the relief duty. In accordance with statutory timeframes, the Council should have issued its main duty decision by 22 April 2025.
24. The Council sent Mr X a leaflet which detailed he may be placed in temporary accommodation which would not have access to cooking or washing facilities.
25. On the day Mr X had to leave his property, the Council contacted him to confirm it had arranged interim accommodation at a local Travelodge. Mr X responded to the Council to explain that he did not have the funds to travel to the interim accommodation.
26. The Council contacted Mr X to discuss the accommodation offer. Mr X was now requesting accommodation with a double bed and no stairs.
27. In response to Mr X’s refusal of the accommodation offer, the Council issued a letter to explain its duty to provide interim accommodation had ended. The letter explained the Council had considered Mr X’s comments but it was satisfied the accommodation was suitable.
28. Mr X contacted the Council again two days later to explain he now had the funds to travel to the accommodation.
29. From the second week of March 2025, the Council provided Mr X with interim accommodation at a local hotel.
30. Mr X contacted the Council at the beginning of May to raise his concern about the suitability of the interim accommodation due to the lack of cooking facilities and the impact this was having on his health.
31. Mr X contacted the Council again in June to explain the hotel accommodation was no longer suitable for his needs and the conditions were impacting his mental and physical health. In the same email, Mr X also asked some questions about securing a private rented tenancy.
32. The Council provided a response to Mr X’s tenancy questions but did now acknowledge his suitability concerns.
33. Two days later, a charity contacted the Council on Mr X’s behalf. Shelter advised the Council had failed to issue a main duty decision and highlighted the impact of the current accommodation on Mr X’s mental and physical health.
34. Due to not receiving a response to its first email, the charity contacted the Council again in the first week of July. The Council issued Mr X a letter accepting the main housing duty on the same day. This is a delay of approximately 3 months.
35. On the same day as accepting the main housing duty, the Council agreed to move Mr X to accommodation which was close to a supermarket to allow him access to fresh food. The Council issued a letter to Mr X explaining this new accommodation was considered suitable for the purpose of temporary accommodation under the main housing duty.
36. Mr X contacted the Council in the first week of August to request a statutory review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation. Mr X provided evidence from his GP to support his request.
37. The Council accepted the review request and, in line with the statutory review process, it should have issued a decision by the end of September 2025.
38. The Council failed to issue a response to Mr X’s request for a suitability review. In response to our enquiries the Council told us it did not complete the suitability review due to Mr X securing private accommodation at the end of September 2025.

My findings

39. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions at the beginning of March when it offered Mr X interim accommodation. The Council made an offer which it considered was suitable. Mr X declined the offer, so the Council was within its rights to end its duty to provide interim accommodation.
40. The Council delayed in accepting the main housing duty for approximately 3 months. This delayed Mr X’s right to a suitability review of his accommodation. This is fault which caused Mr X distress and frustration. Given the Council’s decision to move Mr X to different accommodation once the main duty was issued, I consider the Council’s delay in issuing the main duty caused Mr X to reside in unsuitable accommodation for approximately three months.
41. The Council failed to complete a statutory review of the suitability of Mr X’s accommodation. Although Mr X secured a private tenancy, the Council should have completed the review and issued a decision letter. Failure to do so is fault which caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty.

Back to top

Action

42. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology.
• Make a symbolic payment of £600 to Mr X in recognition of the three month delay in issuing the main duty decision and the impact this had on the suitability of Mr X’s accommodation.
• Make a further symbolic payment of £250 to Mr X in recognition of the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council’s failure to complete the suitability review of Mr X’s temporary accommodation.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman