Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide suitable temporary accommodation for himself and his young family. We found the Council placed Mr X and his family in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation and then unsuitable hotel accommodation for longer than appropriate. This is fault and caused Mr X and his family distress and hardship. The Council will apologise and make a payments to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has failed to provide suitable temporary accommodation for himself and his young family. He complained that he and his family lived in B&B style accommodation with shared kitchen facilities for over a year. And despite upholding his complaint the Council did not provide suitable accommodation.

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

Homelessness

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. 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)
8. If, having made inquiries, the 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)
9. 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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
10. 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.
11. Councils must complete reviews of the suitability of temporary accommodation within eight weeks of the review request.
12. B&B accommodation can only be used for households which include a pregnant woman or dependent child when no other accommodation is available and then for no more than six weeks.
13. B&B is accommodation which is not self-contained, not owned or managed by the council or a registered provider of social housing and where the toilet, washing, or cooking facilities are shared with other households. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.35 - 17.37)

What happened here

14. This is a summary of events outlining the key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
15. Mr X presented as homeless in June 2024. The Council accepted a duty to make enquires and provided Mr X and his family with interim accommodation on 20 June 2024. The accommodation was Bed and Breakfast (B&B) style accommodation made up of a single room with shared kitchen facilities.
16. The following month Mr X asked the Council for update and an indication of when they would receive an offer of accommodation.
17. The Council accepted a relief duty in August 2024 and on 1 October 2024 it accepted the main housing duty. The Council told Mr X it would continue to provide temporary accommodation at the B&B.
18. Mr X contacted the Council in February 2025 asking for clarification on the accommodation at the B&B. He said the accommodation manager had told him his family would need to leave the accommodation, but Mr X had not heard anything from the Council or been given any details of alternative accommodation. There is no record of the Council’s response.
19. In April 2025 Mr X made a formal complaint about the temporary accommodation. Mr X complained it was not suitable accommodation for a family and said he had repeatedly requested alternative accommodation. Mr X also told the Council the accommodation manager had told him he had to move to another B&B that day. Mr X asked the Council to place his family in appropriate self-contained accommodation. He also asked for a suitability review and an investigation into how the Council had handled their situation.
20. The Council moved Mr X and his family to further B&B accommodation, in April 2025 and then to hotel accommodation, in May 2025.
21. The Council also responded to Mr X’s complaint in late May 2025. It upheld his complaint and accepted Mr X had been in interim accommodation for longer than it would want. The Council apologised for this.
22. In addition the Council confirmed the Reviews Team would consider the suitability of his current accommodation. And said that while this process was ongoing it could not comment on the suitability of his current accommodation.
23. It noted the borough had a chronic shortage of housing and that the Council was facing a temporary accommodation emergency. While the Council had highlighted Mr X’s case for move-on accommodation, the Council said it could not give a timeframe for when it would make Mr X a suitable offer.
24. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response. He said he had been in unsuitable accommodation for almost a year while others had been rehoused. Mr X again asked the Council to provide suitable self-contained accommodation.
25. The Council reviewed Mr X’s complaint and responded at stage two of its complaints process on 25 June 2025. It again confirmed Mr X’s case had been passed to the Reviews Team to assess the suitability of the current accommodation.
26. It said it was upholding Mr X’s complaint as he and his family had been in B&B/ hotel type of accommodation, sharing facilities with other residents for over a year. The Council again apologised for the delay in offering a suitable property.
27. A reviewing officer also contacted Mr X on 25 June 2025 and asked Mr X to provide representations for his review. They said the review date had been set at 20 August 2025. Mr X made representations the same day and asserted a single room in a hotel was not suitable for his family. He also told the Council the need to move was now more urgent as his wife was pregnant.
28. The Council’s records show it provided Mr X with details of properties in Wolverhampton in July 2025. It also provided details of a private rental property in August 2025 which was available to view. The Council suggested Mr X manage his expectations regarding where he would like to live. It said that when it eventually made Mr X a final offer of accommodation this could be anywhere in London.
29. Mr X did not receive a response to his review request and in September 2025 asked the Ombudsman to investigate his concerns. He says living in a single overcrowded room in a B&B for over a year caused his family significant stress and anxiety and was harmful to his mental health. It also had a detrimental impact on his family’s wellbeing and family life.
30. In late September 2025 the Council offered Mr X alternative temporary accommodation in a two bedroom flat. Mr X and his family moved to this accommodation on 1 October 2025.
31. In response to our enquiries the Council says it has not yet completed Mr X’s suitability review, due to a backlog and the resignation of the officer assigned to complete the review. It says it has now reassigned the review and this will be completed by early May 2026.
32. The Council acknowledges that Mr X’s accommodation was unsuitable and that it should have offered alternative accommodation. It says it placed Mr X on its Temporary Accommodation transfer register and acknowledges it took longer than expected to facilitate a move.
33. It says the delay was due to a combination of factors, including exceptionally high demand for temporary accommodation, a highly competitive housing market and the Council’s implementation of a revised pricing model. The Council says that during the period in which the model was being introduced it was actively seeking to stabilise supply. However market conditions and competition from other local authorities offering higher rates limited the Council’s ability to secure additional units.
34. This led to a backlog of management transfers. The Council says it allocated temporary accommodation in accordance with assessed priority during a period when there were a high number of households with more urgent and acute needs.
35. The Council says the housing market is now more stable with broader alignment of pricing across local authorities and supply has increased. The Council says it is now in a stronger position to progress management transfers more effectively. In addition, the Council says it took proactive and ongoing steps to identify suitable alternative accommodation for Mr X. It explored availability across existing temporary accommodation suppliers and potential new providers for a range of accommodation options. It also considered availability within Council-owned housing stock but no suitable properties were available.
36. In late April 2026 the Council offered Mr X a property to discharge its homelessness duty.

Analysis

37. The law says that councils should only house families with children in B&B accommodation where no other accommodation is available and then only for a maximum of six weeks. The Council says the borough has a chronic shortage of housing and it was facing a temporarny accommodation emergency. I recognise the difficulties with housing availability in the council’s area, but in Mr X’s case his family were placed in B&B accommodation for 11 months. This is almost 43 weeks longer than the maximum allowed. This was fault by the Council.
38. The accommodation provided at the hotel between May and September 2025 was not B&B style accommodation as this accommodation was managed by the Council. However it was still a single room and Mr X and his family had to share kitchen facilities with other residents. The Council acknowledges that while this accommodation is suitable short term it is not necessarily suitable long term. Mr X and his family remained in this accommodation for 17 and a half weeks. This is fault.
39. The Council says it took proactive and ongoing steps to identify suitable alternative accommodation for Mr X but has not provided any evidence of its actions. The documentation provided does not suggest there was active or effective oversight of Mr X’s homeless application.
40. Given that the law is clear it that B&B accommodation is not suitable accommodation for applicants with a family for more than six weeks, it should not have taken the Council a year to add Mr X to its Temporary Accommodation Transfer register. It is particularly concerning that this only appears to have happened because Mr X made a formal complaint.
41. Mr X requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation on 9 April 2025. To comply with the eight week timeframe, the Council should have completed the review by 4 June 2025. However the Council did not allocate Mr X’s review to an officer until after this date, and the Officer then incorrectly set a deadline of 20 August 2025. The Council did not meet this later deadline, and over a year after Mr X requested a review it was still not completed. This is fault.
42. In addition to missing statutory deadlines, the Council’s position on Mr X’s review request and the suitability of his temporary accommodation is confused and inconsistent. The Council has upheld Mr X’s complaints on the basis he and his family were in B&B accommodation for longer than they should have. Yet at the same time, it said it could not comment on the suitability of accommodation while a review was ongoing.
43. The response to our enquiries then says that following the review, the Council acknowledged the accommodation was unsuitable and placed Mr X on its Temporary Accommodation Transfer register. However the same response says the Council has recently reallocated Mr X’s case and aims to complete the suitability review in early May 2026.
44. These inconsistencies and contradictory statements about whether it has determined the accommodation unsuitable or not call in to question the accuracy of the Council’s record keeping and oversight of Mr X’s homeless application. The apparent lack of active or effective oversight of Mr X’s homeless application is fault.
45. The faults identified have caused Mr X and his family a significant injustice. Mr X says his family had to live, sleep and eat in the same cramped space. And that there was no safe space for his young child to play or follow a normal routine. In addition the shared kitchen facilities were inconvenient, unhygienic and, at times, difficult to access. This limited their ability to make proper meals. The situation became even more difficult when his wife was pregnant.
46. Our guidance on remedies says that where a someone has been deprived of suitable accommodation we recommend a symbolic financial payment of between £150 and £350 per month. We assess each case on its merits and consider the impact on the complainant and other members of their household, taking into account factors such as:
• The size of the accommodation;
• Whether there are adequate facilities to store, prepare and cook food;
• The age of the household members; and
• Any disabilities or vulnerabilities of the household members.
47. In this instance I consider a payment of £350 per month for the period May to September 2025 when Mr X and his family were in the hotel managed by the Council.
48. Our guidance also says that where a family has had to stay in unsuitable B & B accommodation in excess of the six-week legal limit, we are likely to recommend a weekly payment in the range of £100 to £200. In the circumstances I consider a payment of £150 per week would be appropriate for the period June 2024 to July 2025.
49. We have made a number of service improvement recommendations in similar cases recently investigated by the Ombudsman. I have not therefore recommended any further service improvements.

Back to top

Action

50. The Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for the distress caused to him and his family by failing to provide suitable temporary accommodation. 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.
• Make a symbolic payment to Mr X of £6,450 to acknowledge that he and his family lived in unsuitable B& B accommodation for 43 weeks;
• Make a symbolic payment to Mr X of £1,400 to acknowledge that he and his family then lived in unsuitable accommodation for a further four months;
51. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman