Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed carrying out a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation and left her and her daughter in unsafe and unsuitable accommodation. We find the Council at fault for taking too long to make a new temporary accommodation suitability decision. This caused significant injustice to Ms X in the form of uncertainty, frustration and delayed appeal rights. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council delayed carrying out a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation and left her and her daughter in unsafe and unsuitable accommodation.
2. She says this has put her daughter at risk and posed significant challenges to daily life, causing distress, stress and anxiety.
3. She would like the Council to rehouse her in a safe suitable home, apologise, pay compensation for the stress and anxiety and review its policies and procedures to prevent the same from happening to others in the future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated Ms X’s complaint from 26 June 2025 and whether there was ongoing fault and injustice until the Council made its new decision on the suitability of her accommodation on 5 February 2026.
8. I have not considered whether there was ongoing fault or injustice beyond 5 February 2026. This is because the Council made Ms X aware she had the right to request a review of its decision, and she had a right to appeal any review decision to the court. I have decided it is reasonable to expect her to have done so. I therefore have not considered matters beyond that date in line with paragraph 5.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Ms 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

11. The main housing duty applies if a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need. The council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
12. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of various decisions a council may make. This includes the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted.
13. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)
14. 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 (for example, if their medical or disability-related needs change or there is an increase in the size of the household). The council should then make a new suitability decision. (R(B) v Redbridge LBC [2019] EWHC 250 (Admin))
15. If the council decides the accommodation is suitable, that decision must be put in writing and the applicant must be notified of the right to request a review. The applicant can then use the review procedure to challenge the decision on suitability and we usually expect people to use this statutory right and then appeal.

What happened

16. This is a summary of key events. It is not a detailed chronology of everything that happened.
17. The Council previously accepted the main housing duty towards Ms X and her daughter. They were living in temporary accommodation it had provided for them.
18. On 26 June 2025 a person on behalf of Ms X emailed the Council. She said Ms X’s accommodation was not suitable. She explained the reasons including a recent medical diagnosis regarding her daughter. She asked the Council for a reassessment of the suitability of the accommodation.
19. On 22 August the Council responded. It agreed it was necessary to complete a reassessment of the suitability of Ms X’s accommodation. It said it had started the process to do so.
20. The Council asked Ms X for medical documents about her daughter. On 28 August Ms X emailed the Council medical documents. She emailed the documents directly to a council case officer.
21. In September Ms X chased a response from the Council. She escalated matters because she had heard nothing. The Council acknowledged receipt.
22. On 23 October the Council responded to Ms X’s messages. It said it had found no record of receiving the medical documents she had sent on 28 August. It asked her to resend the documents. It said it would complete the assessment promptly once it had received the documents.
23. On 27 October a person on behalf of Ms X replied to the Council. They provided the email and attachments that Ms X had sent on 28 August.
24. Ms X complained to us on 11 November.
25. Ms X subsequently provided evidence she chased the Council in January and February 2026. The Council emailed Ms X in February and confirmed receipt of the medical documents. It apologised for the delay.
26. On 5 February the Council said it completed the reassessment of the suitability of Ms X’s accommodation. It said it decided that evidence did not demonstrate that the current temporary accommodation was unsuitable. It said it notified Ms X the new decision and advised she had the right to request a review within 21 days.
27. The Council said it accepted a request for a review of its new decision from Ms X on 24 February.

Analysis and findings

28. Ms X initially asked for a reassessment of the suitability of her accommodation on 26 June 2025. I find this was not a request for a review. However I find it was a valid request for a new suitability decision. This is because she referred to new medical needs of her daughter in line with paragraph 14 above.
29. I have decided the Council should have made a new suitability decision in a reasonable timescale, and within eight weeks at the latest. I therefore find it should have made a new suitability decision by 21 August.
30. I find the Council’s letter of 22 August shows it decided to start the decision making process on, or the day before, that date. I therefore find it did not make a new suitability decision in a reasonable timescale.
31. Ms X subsequently provided medical documents on 28 August. I acknowledge the Council said it could not locate them. However, I have a copy of the email Ms X sent. I find, on the balance of probabilities, she did provide the documents. She also sent them to the Council again on 27 October. For these reasons I have decided Ms X did not contribute to the delay in any way.
32. The Council made a new suitability decision when it sent its decision letter to Ms X on 5 February 2026. This was 24 weeks after 21 August 2025, the date it should have reasonably made its decision by. I find this period was an unacceptable delay. This was fault. It caused significant injustice to Ms X in the form of uncertainty, frustration and delayed appeal rights.
33. I have considered the severity of the injustice with reference to our Guidance on Remedies. I have decided to recommend the Council apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.
34. I have decided not to recommend service improvements to the Council’s policies or procedures in this case. This is because I have decided there is not enough evidence to say the fault was due to widespread failure, as opposed to individual mistakes.

Back to top

Action

35. Within six weeks of the date of my final decision the Council will:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the injustice. 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.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £250 to Ms X to acknowledge the injustice.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I find fault in the delay in making a new temporary accommodation suitability decision causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice and I have ended my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman