Summary: Miss F complained the Council placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation and failed to deal with disrepair and pests. We found no fault in the way it dealt with the disrepair or pests but the Council failed to assess a property’s suitability, causing Miss F uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy that injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss F complained that the Council placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation in January 2025 and failed to take sufficient action to deal with disrepair and pests in the properties she was placed in between January November 2025.
2. Miss F says this caused significant distress, leaving her mentally and emotionally drained and her mental health deteriorated. She wants the Council to offer suitable permanent accommodation.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss F and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Miss F 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 relevant law and guidance

9. 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.
10. The relief duty requires an authority to “take reasonable steps” to help the applicant to secure suitable accommodation which is available for occupation for at least six months. When the relief period ends the authority must decide whether it owes the person the main housing duty. It will owe the main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and who are not homeless intentionally. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
11. If the authority accepts the main duty, it must then secure that suitable accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Suitability of accommodation and reviews

12. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
13. In deciding whether accommodation is suitable, councils 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). The council must consider if the accommodation is:
• affordable.
• in good enough condition – as an absolute minimum it must be free of Category 1 hazards which pose a serious risk to health and safety.
• in a suitable location.
• the right size.
• suitable for any health issues or disabilities.
14. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the council to review the accommodation’s suitability within 21 days of the council accepting the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
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. The council should then make a new suitability decision. (R(B) v Redbridge LBC [2019] EWHC 250 (Admin))
16. A review about the suitability of accommodation must be completed within eight weeks of the review request. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018)
17. If the council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the council must provide suitable accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
18. The person has a right to appeal the council’s review decision to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
19. We expect people to use their review and appeal rights and therefore we usually do not investigate when someone has these rights. However, we may exercise discretion to investigate in exceptional cases. For instance, where the council has failed to inform someone of their right to seek a review.

Hazards and disrepair

20. Accommodation is not suitable if it falls below certain minimum standards. The Code recommends that any accommodation should, as a minimum, be free of “Category One” hazards assessed under the Housing Health and Safety Rating system. A category one hazard is a hazard that poses a serious threat to someone’s health or safety. If a council considers a category one hazard exists it must take the appropriate enforcement action.
21. In relation to disrepair, in the first instance, occupiers are expected to report any defects to the landlord or managing agent. If the landlord or agent fails to respond or does not arrange for works to be done in a reasonable time, the applicant may then contact the council.

What happened

22. Miss F was homeless and had been placed in interim accommodation with her child. In January 2025 she was moved into Property X. On 18 January, the Council accepted the main housing duty and provided Miss F with review rights. The 21-day period for requesting a suitability review ended on 8 February.
23. Miss F reported a blocked sink and broken shower. The Council says these were fixed by 12 February although it has not sent evidence of the visits or repairs.
24. On 17 February, Miss F told the Council Property X was unsuitable and uninhabitable because of the shower, heating, blocked sink, uncomfortable beds and a bedbug infestation. The Council said there were no other suitable, affordable properties available. On 21 February it agreed to assess the suitability of Property X.
25. The evidence indicates that pest control visited on 25 February and 18 March and found no bedbugs but the Council says it has no records of either visit.
26. The Council found alternative temporary accommodation (Property Y) which Miss F viewed on 21 March. She says she accepted it immediately. On 24 March the Council sent an offer letter. Miss F says she then packed her belongings, changed her address and enrolled her child in a nearby school in anticipation of moving.
27. The Council told Miss F it could not proceed with the previously agreed suitability review of Property X because she had accepted the Property Y tenancy.
28. On 27 March, Property Y’s letting agent told the Council the property was no longer available. Miss F says the agent told her the Council had not informed them that she had accepted the property.
29. Miss F complained to the Council that she had lost the accommodation because of failures in communication between the Council and the agent and that she remained in unsuitable and uninhabitable accommodation.
30. There was another pest control visit on 8 April, a bedbug monitor was used but no bedbugs were found.
31. In its stage one complaint response of 2 May, the Council apologised for a communication breakdown in relation to Property Y. It said the letting agent had initially advised the property was being made ready. The Council had remained in contact with the agent but had not heard back until 27 March, when the agent said Property Y was no longer available.
32. After a further complaint from Miss F on 7 May about her accommodation being unsuitable and the behaviour of an officer, the Council offered Miss F alternative temporary accommodation at Property Z on 8 May, together with review rights. Miss F moved to Property Z on 12 May.
33. The Council’s stage two complaint response of 22 July said Property X had been habitable, the plumbing and heating issues had been addressed without delay, and pest control had found no evidence of bedbugs. The Council also said it held no information showing a rat problem at the property.
34. In September, Miss F reported a mouse infestation at Property Z. She also complained about heating issues and that Property Z was not suitable.
35. The Council responded to the complaint on 30 October. It said the heating would be repaired and pest control would visit the next day.
36. Miss F brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. The Council later offered her further temporary accommodation and she moved there on 30 December.

My findings

37. Miss F had the right to request a review of the suitability of Property X from 18 January. She did not initially do so but she raised concerns about disrepair and pests.
38. I have not seen the details of the repairs that were made in February or the pest control visits, but the evidence shows the Council responded to Miss F’s reports and visited the property. My provisional view, therefore, is there was no fault in the way it dealt with the disrepair or reports of pests.
39. I accept that Property X suffered from shower and heating problems. However, disrepair does not in itself mean accommodation is unsuitable. On the evidence available, I have not seen that these defects constituted Category 1 hazards or were of such severity that the accommodation was unsuitable due to its condition.
40. After the 21-day period, Miss F told the Council she considered Property X to be unsuitable and on 21 February it agreed to assess its suitability. It was not fault by the Council to cancel that once it had offered Property Y. But my provisional view is that after Property Y was withdrawn, the Council should have assessed Property X’s suitability as it had already agreed to do. I consider its failure to do so was fault. This has caused Miss F uncertainty about what the outcome would have been.
41. Miss F says she missed out on Property Y because the Council did not inform the agent that she had accepted the property. I have not seen evidence the Council failed to do that or that that was the cause of the agent’s withdrawal of Property Y. The Council says it contacted the agent but did not hear back and when it did, the agent withdrew the property. So on the evidence seen, my provisional view is there was no fault.
42. Miss F had the right to request a review of the suitability of Property Z from 8 May. She did not do so but in September she reported a pest issue and then complained this had not been dealt with and that Property Z was unsuitable. I have not seen evidence that the pest problem was resolved, but nor do I have evidence that this made Property Z unsuitable. My provisional view is that there was no fault by the Council as it referred the matter to the pest control team and dealt with the heating repair.
43. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might. To remedy distress and uncertainty caused by fault, our guidance says a moderate, symbolic payment may be appropriate.

Back to top

Action

44. Within a month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss F for the failure to assess the suitability of Property X in March 2025 and pay her £200 to remedy the uncertainty that caused.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman