Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to provide suitable temporary accommodation for her and her family. We agreed with the Council’s view that it failed to properly consider Mrs B and her family’s medical needs when it offered the current accommodation. This meant the family lived in unsuitable accommodation for nine months. The Council has already apologised and offered a suitable remedy for the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that the London Borough of Wandsworth (the Council) had failed to provide her and her family with suitable temporary accommodation. Her partner was seriously ill and the property had stairs which he could not manage. She also complained that the Council delayed in dealing with disrepair in the property which was exacerbating her partner’s condition. The situation has caused her and her family significant distress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
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. 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

5. I have not investigated the disrepair issue as Mrs B’s solicitor started legal action in July 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Suitability of accommodation

8. 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)
9. 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)

What happened

10. Mrs B and her family had been living in a third floor flat with no lift for several years. This involved three sets of stairs to access. Mrs B’s partner was seriously ill and the stairs made getting in and out of the building difficult.
11. In November 2024 the Council reviewed their housing needs and concluded they required a three bedroom property on the ground floor or up to the fifth floor with a lift. On 26 November the Council called Mrs B to discuss a potential offer of three bedroom split-level flat on the ground and first floor, with some internal stairs. The Council says the stairs were discussed in the call and Mrs B accepted the property. The form completed at the time of the call says there is no reason why any member of the family cannot climb four flights of stairs.
12. They moved into the property in January 2025.
13. On 6 June Mrs B made a formal complaint about the property, saying it was unsuitable and hazardous. She said the property was severely overcrowded and not suitable due to the disrepair.
14. The Council replied at the beginning of July 2025. It said the property was not unsuitable due to disrepair and it was big enough for the family.
15. Mrs B escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 14 July 2025. She said her partner had been admitted to hospital recently and she felt the condition of the property had caused his deterioration.
16. The Council replied on 29 August 2025. It said it accepted the property was not suitable due to the internal stairs and recognised that it had not properly considered the medical recommendations at the time of the offer. In particular the Council should have explored during the pre-offer call whether the internal stairs were acceptable.
17. It said an officer had contacted Mrs B the previous day to discuss an offer of alternative temporary accommodation, but she had declined saying she did not want any more temporary accommodation.
18. The Council apologised and offered Mrs B a financial remedy of £2400 for living in unsuitable accommodation from 26 November 2024 until 28 August 2025.
19. This equates to around £266 per month and is in line with the amounts suggested in our Guidance on Remedies for living in unsuitable accommodation.
20. I note Mrs B rejected this offer in September 2025. The Council could consider remaking the offer to Mrs B to give her another chance to accept the apology and payment.

Back to top

Decision

21. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has taken action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman