Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in carrying out a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council moved her to alternative temporary accommodation to save costs, but she says the rent is the same. Ms X says the alternative accommodation is not suitable due to its location, disrepair and an infestation.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. The Council moved Ms X to alternative temporary accommodation at property B in July 2025. Ms X was unhappy about the move and complained. The Council carried out an inspection of property B. It identified a series of minor works needed and also the need to remove some excess furniture. It also identified fire safety issues and the new for window restrictors to be fitted.
6. Council records show the management agent was asked to carry out the works identified. The managing agent reported some difficulty gaining access as Ms X placed conditions on doing so, which the managing agent did not initially accept. This delayed carrying out pest control work and addressing the disrepair issues.
7. In its complaint response, the Council:
• explained the move was to save costs. It had been paying a nightly rate for the previous TA, which was too expensive, but it said it could not disclose details of the costs;
• accepted the inspection had identified minor works needed, which should have been done before Ms X moved there. These would be addressed by the managing agent when access was given. However, the issues identified did not make the TA unsuitable.
8. Ms X was unhappy with the complaint responses and asked the Council to carry out a review of the suitability of the TA in late September 2025. The Council carried out a review in March 2026 and decided the TA was suitable. It explained its reasons, including addressing the concerns Ms X had raised. It said the works identified had been done. It set out relevant court appeal rights.

My assessment

9. The nature of temporary accommodation (TA) is that people may need to move and at short notice. The Council is entitled to keep the costs under review, but any alternative TA offered must be suitable for the household.
10. The Council carried out a suitability review, which found the TA was suitable. Ms X had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law if she disagreed with the review decision. It was reasonable for her to use her appeal rights because only the courts could determine whether the TA was legally suitable.
11. That said, if we investigated further, it is likely we would find fault with the Council for not ensuring adequate pre-tenancy checks were completed, which meant it missed the chance to carry out works before Ms X moved in. The Council was also at fault for a delay in carrying out the suitability review, which caused uncertainty to Ms X.
12. We therefore invited the Council to take steps to remedy the injustice caused and it has agreed to take the following action within one month of the date of our final decision:
• apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice; and
• pay her £300 as a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. For the avoidance of doubt, this payment cannot be offset against any rent arrears.
13. The Council inspected without delay and identified the works needed. There was a delay in carrying out those works but that was not within the control of the Council as there was a dispute between Ms X and the managing agent about the conditions for access. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating this aspect further.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We have upheld Ms X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to take appropriate steps to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman