Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to resolve disrepair issues in his temporary accommodation and mishandled his finances. He also complained the Council lost his medical information. The Council was at fault. It failed to carry out a suitability review of Mr B’s accommodation when he contacted it about the suitability. It also gave Mr B conflicting advice and communicated with him poorly. Because of the fault, Mr B suffered distress, he was denied the opportunity to ask for a section 202 suitability review, and he remained living in unsuitable conditions. The Council will apologise to Mr B and make symbolic payments.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council has:
• Mishandled his temporary accommodation account, including his finances.
• Failed to resolve disrepair issues at the accommodation in a timely manner.
• Lost his medical documents.
2. Mr B says he and his family have suffered physical and mental distress as a result. He would like the Council to apologise and take accountability for its failings. He would also like the Council to offer a financial remedy, train staff, and improve its service to prevent future reoccurrences.

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. 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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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

7. The matters Mr B complains of start from 2022 when he first moved into the accommodation. Mr B brought his complaint to us in September 2025. So, any complaint about events before September 2024 are late, and I do not consider there are good reasons to consider matters as far back as 2022. However, I have exercised discretion to consider matters from June 2024, when Mr B moved to a larger room within the accommodation. I consider this would be appropriate to include in my investigation.
8. As such, I have investigated matters in this case from June 2024, as outlined above, to June 2025 when the Council sent Mr B its stage two complaint response. I reference matters outside of these dates for context.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I read Mr B’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
10. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mr 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

Temporary accommodation

12. 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)

Suitability of accommodation

13. 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)
14. 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)

Back to top

What happened

15. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not include everything that has happened in this case.

Suitability of accommodation

16. Mr B and his four children moved into the temporary accommodation, a block of flats, in September 2022. In June 2024, he moved to a larger room within the building.
17. Mr B contacted the Council about the suitability of the accommodation in early December 2024. He told it he had had no proper heating for two years, and there was not enough hot water for him and his family to shower.
18. In May 2025, the Council carried out a suitability assessment to inform its future offers of accommodation. It did not make a suitability decision about the specific accommodation Mr B was living in at the time.

Rent and service charge

19. The Council says Mr B stopped paying his service charge in April 2024. Mr B says this was due to advice given by staff at his accommodation.
20. Staff at the accommodation spoke to Mr B about his arrears after he moved to a different room within the building in June 2024. The Council also informed Mr B of his rent arrears in August 2024, and set up a payment plan for Mr B. The Council began the process of referring Mr B to the housing benefit team, but this was paused due to outstanding information it needed from Mr B about his universal credit. This was received, and the Council processed his application in December 2024. The Council reminded Mr B of his service charge arrears and obligation to pay his rent around the same time.
21. In early January 2025, the Council told Mr B he had not honoured the payment plan, despite him receiving his universal credit. Mr B told the Council he would not be paying the service charge until the disrepair issues in his accommodation had been resolved. The Council spoke with Mr B again a few days later and set up a new payment plan. It also applied for a discretionary housing payment to support with the rent arrears. However, the staff member helping Mr B went off sick, and other staff members were unable to give Mr B clear information about his application and the amounts he owed. In March 2025, the Council met with Mr B to clarify this information and Mr B agreed to a new payment plan.
22. Before this time, Mr B had not complied with the previous payment plans, however in response to my enquiries, the Council says all arrears are now cleared.

Back to top

Analysis

23. The Council has acknowledged it did not make a decision about the suitability of Mr B’s accommodation and treat his contacts about the disrepair of his accommodation as a trigger for a review of suitability. For the period I have investigated and from the evidence I have seen, Mr B first contacted the Council with concerns about the suitability of his accommodation at the start of December 2024. He told the Council about issues with the flat door, the lack of heating for two years, and not having enough hot water for him and his children to wash.
24. This contact should have prompted the Council to make a decision about the suitability of the accommodation, and whether Mr B could continue to occupy it. It should have then put its suitability decision in writing to Mr B and, if it decided it was suitable, it should have notified him about his right to request a section 202 review. The Council did not do this. This was fault, which meant Mr B was denied the opportunity to request a section 202 suitability review of the accommodation.
25. The Council began a suitability assessment at the end of May 2025. The Council told me the purpose of this assessment was to inform future offers of accommodation. It says it did not make a decision about the suitability of the particular temporary accommodation Mr B was living in at the time. As such, I have considered on the balance of probabilities whether it was suitable. The legal duty lies with the Council to ensure the applicant is in suitable accommodation, which is free from disrepair or hazards, such as extreme cold. Where there is ongoing disrepair, the Council should also consider whether the extent of the disrepair means the property is not suitable.
26. The disrepair issues which were reported were responded to in a timely manner. However, the Council has accepted there was ongoing disrepair issues at the accommodation regarding the heating and hot water. Mr B says the cold in his accommodation meant he had to seek warmth in his car, and it worsened his health. There were also occasions he and his family could not shower with hot water. The Council says that upon completion of the suitability assessment it actioned to inform its future offers, it moved Mr B to another unit within the accommodation. I consider, on balance, given the above, it is more likely than not that the accommodation was not suitable. This meant Mr B remained living in unsuitable conditions for longer than he should have. Had the Council completed a suitability review of this accommodation when this should have been triggered in December 2024, Mr B may have been relieved of his situation sooner.
27. Our guidance on remedies takes the view that where someone has been deprived of suitable accommodation, we will usually recommend a payment between £150 to £350 a month. We consider each complaint on its merits and consider the impact the fault had on the person making the complaint and their family. In the circumstances of this case, I consider £150 to be appropriate. This has been calculated from when Mr B began reporting the concerns to the Council in early December 2024 which should have triggered a review of suitability, to mid-September 2025 when he moved to different accommodation.
28. I have not seen evidence the Council mishandled Mr B’s temporary accommodation account or his finances. Mr B was aware of his responsibilities to pay his rent and service charge. However, the Council has accepted conflicting advice was given to Mr B about the repayment terms, and that it could have communicated better regarding the status of his discretionary housing payment support during the absence of the staff member supporting Mr B. This was fault, which caused distress to Mr B.
29. Mr B says he believes the Council lost documents containing his medical information. He says this is because the Council asked him for information he had already sent it previously. I have considered what Mr B has said, but I have not found any evidence to suggest the Council lost Mr B’s documentation. The Council is entitled to ask for up-to-date records when completing actions such as suitability assessments. This does not, on its own, indicate that the Council lost his information.
30. We have made service improvement recommendations in another case where we identified similar failings to the ones in this case. I have therefore not made any service improvement recommendations. We do however monitor emerging themes and issues in the complaints that are brought to us and will make service improvement recommendations where appropriate, which we carefully monitor to help drive improvement to council services.
31. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred.

Back to top

Action

32. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mr B by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mr B for the distress caused to him by the identified fault, and for the denied opportunity to request a section 202 suitability review, and time spent living in unsuitable conditions. This apology should be in accordance with our guidance Making an effective apology.
• Pay Mr B £1,425 to acknowledge the time spent living in unsuitable conditions and the denied opportunity to request a section 202 suitability review caused by the identified fault.
• Pay Mr B £100 for the distress caused by the identified fault in paragraph 28.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

34. I uphold Mr B’s complaint and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman