Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide him with suitable temporary accommodation in response to his homelessness. We found the Council to be at fault because it took long to process his homelessness application and suitability review. This caused uncertainty and meant he stayed in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to provide him with suitable temporary accommodation over a period of 18 months.
2. Mr X says his family of four, lived in a one room studio flat that was in a poor state of repair. This affected their physical and mental health. They felt constantly tired, anxious and hopeless.

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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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.
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. 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

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.
9. 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 for them. 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 temporary accommodation

10. Temporary accommodation is accommodation provided to homeless applicants as part of a council’s main homelessness duty.
11. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
12. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. There is also a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
13. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of a request. This can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.

What happened

14. I have set out below a summary of the key events. But it is not meant to show everything that happened.
15. In April 2024, Mr X made a homelessness application to the Council. Had had lived in private rented accommodation with his wife and two children since 2014. His landlord had issued an eviction notice.
16. In September 2024, Mr X was provided with interim accommodation whilst his application was being processed. This was a one-room studio flat (“the Studio”).
17. Mr X says this was unsuitable for several reasons. He says it was unreasonable to expect his four-person family to live, sleep and eat in one room. The Studio was also affected by damp and mould and there was anti-social behaviour in the locality.
18. In January 2025, the Council confirmed Mr X was entitled to the main homelessness duty. The Studio was confirmed a being suitable temporary accommodation. Mr X was advised of his right to request a review of the Studio’s suitability.
19. Mr X complained to the Council in May 2025, specifically about the impact of his living conditions.
20. In response to his complaint, the Council advised Mr X of his right to request a suitability review. It also confirmed an officer had visited the Studio and was satisfied it was not severely affected by mould or damp.
21. Mr X made a request for a suitability review on 22 July 2025.
22. The Council issued its suitability review decision on 9 January 2026. This concluded the Studio was unsuitable.
23. Mr X was offered and accepted more appropriate temporary accommodation in March 2026.

The Council’s position

24. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council said:

• it was unable to comment on the suitability of the Studio before the date of the suitability review; and
• Mr X refused property in December 2025, but a further, accepted, offer was made in March 2026.

Analysis

25. The Council has a duty to ensure any accommodation it provides to a homeless household is suitable at the point of placement. The Council must also process a homeless application within a specified time scale.

Delay in processing Mr X’s homelessness application

26. There was delay in determinising Mr X’s homelessness application. From the date the Council accepted that Mr X was owed the relief duty, it had 56 days (8 weeks) to issue its homelessness decision. In Mr X’s case it took 26 weeks, and I have seen no evidence that Mr X agreed an extension to this. This significant delay is fault. This meant Mr X was denied his right to request a review of the Studio’s suitability for six months. I cannot say that Mr X would have exercised this review right when it should have arose. I say this because he did not do so in February 2025 when he was notified of his right to request a suitability review. However, there is uncertainty as to whether he would have done so earlier than he did. This uncertainty is an injustice that requires a remedy.

Suitability of interim accommodation

27. In response to my enquiries, the Council has provided a copy of the initial suitability assessment of interim accommodation in August 2024, shortly before Mr X moved into the Studio. Whilst this is brief, it is sufficient to satisfy me that the Council had regard to the needs of the family. Four people living in one room was clearly not ideal, but in the context of the chronic housing shortage in London, I do not consider it was unreasonable that Mr X and his family were offered this on a short-term basis.

Suitability of temporary accommodation

28. In February 2025, when the Council accepted Mr X was owed the main homelessness duty, the Studio became temporary accommodation. Mr X was then entitled to request a review of the Studio’s suitability. He was notified of this right, but Mr X did not do so until mid-July. The Council should have completed this review by mid-September. The Council did not complete the review until early January 2026, a delay of over three months. I have seen no evidence that Mr X agreed to this delay and is therefore fault.
29. Because the review determined the Studio to be unsuitable, I am satisfied the Council would have reached this same decision in mid-September had the delay not occurred. Once the Council decided the Studio to be unsuitable, the Council had a duty to move Mr X. It did not do so until March 2026. Although I acknowledge Mr X refused another flat in December 2025, the Council allowed another offer to be made. Because of this, I am satisfied that that Mr X lived in unsuitable accommodation for approximately six months longer than he should have done.
30. Where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation while homeless, our recommendation for symbolic financial redress is likely to be in the range of £150 to £350 a month.
31. Taking account of the fault and the impact on the Mr X and his family living in one room, I recommend the Council should pay Mr X a total of £1,200. This is calculated at a rate of £200 per month.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. Pay Mr X £1,200 to recognise the time his family has time spent in unsuitable accommodation between September 2025 and March 2026.
3. Pay Mr X £250 as a symbolic payment to acknowledge the uncertainty caused by the delay processing his homelessness application.
33. I am satisfied the faults I have identified arose primarily due to increased demand on the homelessness service, as opposed to systemic fault. For this reason, I have not made any service improvement recommendations.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to take action to remedy the personal injustice to Mr X. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman