Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had failed to offer an adequate financial remedy for the time he had spent in unsuitable temporary accommodation. We found fault. Mr B had to live in unsuitable accommodation for 13 months longer than was necessary, without cooking facilities and in an unfamiliar area away from his support network. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and increase its symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that the London Borough of Westminster (the Council) failed to offer an adequate financial remedy for the 21 months he spent in unsuitable temporary accommodation. It has failed to recognise his individual circumstances including the impact of the prolonged period in unsuitable accommodation on his disability, support network and finances due to the lack of cooking facilities. Mr B said this has caused him additional distress and financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr 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

The relief duty

6. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

7. 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).

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)
10. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:

• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)

11. Wherever possible, Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.33)

Guidance on remedies

12. In this document we set out our approach to remedying injustice caused by fault. In terms of homelessness cases where people live in unsuitable accommodation for longer than is necessary, we say the following:

“Where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation during what would inevitably have been a stressful period in their life, our recommendation for symbolic financial redress is likely to be in the range of £150 to £350 a month. But we may recommend a higher monthly amount in cases where the injustice is exceptional or particularly severe. We assess each case on its merits and consider the impact the fault had on the complainant and other members of their household...

We have set out below the factors we take into account, but this is not an exhaustive list...

• Are there adequate facilities to store, prepare and cook food?
• Any disabilities or vulnerabilities of the household members?”

What happened

13. Mr B has a visual impairment. He applied to the Council as homeless in May 2023. The Council placed him in hotel accommodation while it considered his application and on 17 May 2023 it accepted the relief duty towards him. It ended the relief duty in November 2023 deciding that Mr B was intentionally homeless. Following a successful review of the decision the Council accepted the main housing duty towards him on 1 March 2024.
14. Mr B submitted a request for a suitability review in April 2024 and on 24 June the Council decided the accommodation was unsuitable and it would make a new offer of self-contained temporary accommodation.
15. On 21 January 2025 Mr B’s representative made a formal complaint to the Council. They said the Council had not found him any alternative accommodation. He was disabled and the current hotel accommodation was affecting his health and wellbeing. It was far from his support network which made attending hospital appointments difficult, and he incurred extra travel costs due to difficulties navigating unfamiliar places because of his disability. He also had no cooking facilities which was causing him financial hardship having to buy takeaways all the time.
16. The Council then made two offers of accommodation on 31 January and 4 February. The Council accepted both were unsuitable and withdrew them.
17. The Council responded on 14 February. It acknowledged the length of time he had spent in unsuitable accommodation, acknowledged that it was only suitable for the short term but unprecedented demand along with short supply meant nothing suitable had become available for him. It noted Mr B was currently considering an offer of alternative accommodation, still some distance from Westminster. It offered to pay him £150 a month for nine months of living in unsuitable accommodation, a total of £1350.
18. Mr B’s representative noted that the dates in the complaint response were wrong and Mr B had been living in unsuitable accommodation since May 2023, a period of 21 months. In April 2025 the Council increased the offer of payment to £3150.
19. Mr B’s representative escalated the complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. On 21 May the Council responded again apologising for the delay in finding suitable accommodation. It said it was not minimising the impact on Mr B, but it had not been able to find anything. It said it had been working with over 20 different organisations to increase the supply of accommodation and was purchasing properties to use as temporary accommodation in addition to maximising the available vacant properties in regeneration areas.
20. The Council also acknowledged that it had not provided Mr B with any food vouchers to address the lack of cooking facilities. The Council acknowledged it should have provided these and apologised for not doing so. It said it could not compensate him for extra travel costs.
21. It also identified further fault in a five-month delay in notifying Mr B that it had ended the relief duty towards him. It should have done this within 56 days. It said it would write to him with a revised offer of payment in due course.
22. In August 2025, it offered him a further £200 making a total of £3350.
23. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it based its payment on the bottom of the recommended range in our Guidance on Remedies, because it did not consider Mr B had an exceptional or aggravated injustice. It said it took into account his visual impairment, access to his support network and lack of cooking facilities.

Findings

24. The Council delayed for eight months in finding Mr B suitable alternative accommodation: from June 2024 when it decided the accommodation was unsuitable to February 2025 when Mr B moved to alternative accommodation. This was service failure: even though the reasons for the delay were outside the Council’s control, it was still fault which caused Mr B to live in unsuitable accommodation for longer than he should have done.
25. I acknowledge that the Council has calculated the remedy from the date Mr B moved into the accommodation (May 2023). However, we only consider the period after the Council decided the accommodation was unsuitable, unless there were avoidable delays in this process. I note the Council accepts it delayed for five months in deciding to end the relief duty, which added to the delay in Mr B being able to request a statutory suitability review. So, I have calculated a remedy based on 13 months of living in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary.
26. I welcome the Council’s offer of £3350 to remedy the injustice. However, I think its decision to base the amount on £150 a month is flawed. We take into account all the circumstances in reaching a decision on a suitable amount within our range of £150 to £350 per month. The Council has already recognised Mr B had to buy takeaways every day and was vulnerable due to his disabilities. I note he had extra travelling costs due to being away from his support network and in an unfamiliar area, which was exacerbated by his disability. I consider these are significant factors which warrant a higher payment of £300 per month.

Back to top

Action

27. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr B, I recommended the Council within one month of the date of my final decision:
• apologises to him and increases its payment to £3900 (13 months @£300 per month).
28. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
29. As the Council has taken steps to increase its supply of temporary accommodation, I have not made any recommendations for service improvements.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman