Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council responded to her concerns that her temporary accommodation was unsuitable. The Council was at fault. This meant Miss X missed out on her right to ask for a review of her accommodation’s suitability and she has been living in unsuitable housing for over a year. To remedy her injustice, the Council will apologise and pay Miss X a total of £1800. It will take action to ensure it gives accurate information about homeless people’s rights to request a review of the suitability of their temporary accommodation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council responded to her concerns that her temporary accommodation was unsuitable. Miss X said this meant she had to remain in unsuitable housing, which caused her significant and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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.
4. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months from first having notice of something to complain to us about what a council has done. “First having notice” is the wording used in our legislation. It means the point in time when we decide the person should have known enough to complain. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. Miss X complained about matters dating back to August 2022 but she did not complain to the Ombudsman until July 2024, almost two years later. This means the period August 2022 to July 2023 is late. I have exercised my discretion (choice) to include the late period in my investigation because Miss X’s ability to complain to the Council and subsequently us was impacted by her and her child’s ill health, as well as the Council’s delay responding to her complaint and non-statutory review.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered:
• all the information Miss X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the Council’s policies, relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.
9. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Interim and temporary accommodation

10. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
11. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
12. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
13. 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 is available for their occupation. 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)
14. 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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2). Space and the arrangement of a person’s accommodation are key factors in deciding if it is suitable, but councils should consider all relevant factors.

Overcrowding

15. The Housing Act 1985 sets out standards for deciding if a person is statutory overcrowded. The space standard is based on the number of people and the size of sleeping accommodation rooms in a property. Rooms 6.5-8.35 square metres can house one person. Rooms 8.36-10.21 square metres can house 1.5 people. In applying the space standard, children under one year old are ignored and children between one- and ten-years old count as 0.5 a person.

Suitability reviews

16. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. This is a statutory review. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the council must provide suitable accommodation. The person must make their statutory review request within 21 days of the council deciding to offer the accommodation. The council must complete the review within eight weeks of the review request, unless the applicant agrees to extend the period in writing.
17. The Council operates a non-statutory review process for people who want to ask for a review of the suitability of their temporary accommodation after the 21-day timeframe has passed. If the person disagrees with the non-statutory review outcome they can then ask for a statutory review. The Council aims to complete non-statutory reviews within eight weeks of the review request.

What happened

18. After Miss X applied to the Council as homeless in August 2022, it placed her in interim accommodation. Miss X made a complaint to the Council in early September about that accommodation. She said:
• She did not feel safe as a pregnant woman;
• The door to her room did not have a handle on the inside meaning she had been unable to get out several times;
• Her belongings had gone missing. The building management had said they had been thrown away by accident but she thought they had been stolen;
• The front door was being left open; and
• People using alcohol and drugs were loitering around the entranceway.
19. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure in mid-October. It said it was aware the door to Miss X’s room had been fixed. It said it passed her concerns about safety on to the team responsible for arranging accommodation. It said that team would consider other tenants in her building were breaching their tenancy agreements.
20. In late October, Miss X told the Council she was still unhappy with the accommodation and that she had not heard from the team about the anti-social behaviour she had reported, despite the complaint response saying she would.
21. The Council decided it owed Miss X the main housing duty in mid-November. It told Miss X of its decision in early-December 2022. Its letter set out, under the section headed ‘repairs reporting’, “If there is any change in your circumstances that may affect the suitability of your current accommodation, then please contact the Temporary Accommodation Team”.
22. Around the same time, Miss X gave birth to her child.
23. Following a period of ill-health, Miss X contacted the Council about her housing application in May 2023. She did not get a response so chased the Council at the end of the month.
24. Miss X chased the Council for a response twice in June 2024 but did not receive a response other than to ask her for her address and another identifying detail, which she supplied.
25. Miss X’s child was unwell during the summer of 2024 so she did not contact the Council again until late October, when she asked the Council for a review of her complaint. She said:
• There was anti-social behaviour inside the building and around the communal entrance, including alcohol and drug use;
• The front door had been damaged multiple times;
• Her room and the stairs would become unsafe for her child when they started walking;
• She did not have a wardrobe to store her clothes; and
• Her room was on the second floor which meant she had to carry her child up and downstairs in a buggy.
26. In mid-December 2023, Miss X’s child turned one.
27. In early January 2024, the Council decided to treat Miss X’s complaint as non-statutory review request and arranged an inspection of her property as part of the review.
28. A support worker working with Miss X contacted the Council about her accommodation in mid-January. They said Miss X’s home was far away from her family and support system and noted it was not secure; Miss X’s belongings had been stolen from her room.
29. The Council’s inspection found Miss X’s landlord should fix issues with the communal front door, consider installing a peep hole in her bedroom door, move a wardrobe in her bedroom to improve how the radiator heated her room and make other minor improvements. The inspector noted some element of anti-social behaviour was inevitable for a home located where Miss X’s was. Council sent the report to Miss X’s landlord for them to act on.
30. The Council completed its non-statutory review in mid-October 2024. It noted that although Miss X’s accommodation was outside of its district, Miss X’s circumstances did not show that being close to her support network was essential to her household’s welfare.
31. The review found Miss X’s room was between 6.5 and 8.35 square metres, which meant it could only house one person. Once Miss X’s child became one years old, they counted as 0.5 a person and she became statutory overcrowded under the space standard. The Council confirmed it will move Miss X from her property to one which is suitable but it has not yet done so.

Statutory and non-statutory review wait times

32. I asked the Council how many people between December 2023 and December 2024 waited longer than eight weeks for a response to their statutory or non-statutory review requests. The Council told me 268 people had experienced a delay. Of those 268 people, 12 had their review upheld and their accommodation deemed unsuitable.
33. The Council said it had experienced a backlog of reviews which had caused the delays. It confirmed it had hired additional staff and cleared the backlog.

Findings

Concerns about interim accommodation

34. The Council must make sure interim and temporary accommodation it provides to homeless people is suitable. There is no right to ask a council to carry out a review of the suitability of interim accommodation. Councils usually respond to concerns about interim accommodation suitability through their complaints procedures.
35. The Council appropriately responded to Miss X’s concerns about her interim accommodation at stage one of its complaints procedure in October 2022. Its response said it had passed her safety concerns on to the relevant team.
36. There is no evidence that team considered Miss X’s concerns or that they responded after she chased for a response several weeks later. This was fault and caused Miss X avoidable frustration and uncertainty about what might have happened if the team had taken action on her safety concerns.

Temporary accommodation suitability review information

37. Homeless people have a statutory right to request a council review the suitability of their temporary accommodation. For Miss X, this right arose when the Council told her it accepted it owed her the main housing duty in early-December and lasted for 21 days.
38. However, the Council’s decision letter failed to explain Miss X had the review right. It only noted, under the section ‘repairs reporting’ that if Miss X felt her circumstances had changed in such a way as to affect the suitability of her accommodation, then she should contact the temporary accommodation team. This information was inadequate to inform Miss X of her right to ask for a suitability review.
39. There was no clear reference to a review right and furthermore, the information implied Miss X could only question her accommodation’s suitability if her circumstances had changed or if there were disrepair issues. Those are not requirements set out in the law or guidance. The Council’s poor information was fault and meant Miss X missed out on her right of review. I am concerned the Council may have sent similar letters to other homeless applicants, so I have recommended it amend its main housing duty decision letters.
40. I am satisfied that had the Council told Miss X of her right to ask for a review, she would have done so. However, I cannot say, even on balance, if she had, the Council would have concluded her accommodation was unsuitable. That is because her concerns about disrepair, safety and anti-social behaviour do not automatically mean her accommodation was unsuitable; it was a decision for the Council to make using its judgement. Therefore, the fault caused Miss X further avoidable frustration and uncertainty.

Miss X’s suitability review

41. The Council correctly treated Miss X’s request for a review of her complaint in late-October 2023 as a non-statutory review request, because it was made well after the 21-day deadline for requesting a statutory review. However, it did not come to that decision until early January 2024, over two months later.
42. The Council should then have completed the review within eight weeks; by late February, taking into account public holidays. The Council did not issue Miss X’s review until mid-October 2024. Overall, this was a delay of ten months and was fault. This delay caused Miss X avoidable frustration and upset.
43. The Council’s October 2024 review found Miss X’s accommodation was unsuitable as it was too small for her and her child under the space standard. That had been the case since December 2023, when Miss X’s child turned one. Therefore, the Council did not meet its duty to Miss X between December 2023 and October 2024, which was fault. The delay in considering Miss X’s review request contributed to the length of time she was in unsuitable housing, and which she remains in. It caused Miss X upset and frustration in addition to the injustice caused by the unsuitable housing.
44. I am satisfied the Council took suitable steps to investigate and consider the concerns Miss X had about her accommodation, where they could be addressed in the short term. Its inspection found Miss X’s landlord could take steps to make the property safer and more convenient to live in and it asked the landlord to take action. The inspector considered Miss X's complaint about anti-social behaviour but found the behaviour she complained occurred outside the entrance was not unusual for properties in her location. The inspection also showed Miss X had a wardrobe so was not without places to store her belongings.
45. Although the October 2024 review does not show how the Council considered the remaining matters Miss X complained about; the safety of her room and the communal stairs when her child began walking and her issues transporting her child and buggy up and down stairs, I do not consider this to be fault. That is because the Council had already decided Miss X’s home was unsuitable because she was overcrowded so further consideration of other factors was unnecessary.

Other people affected

46. The Council’s backlog meant 268 people waited too long for the outcome of their statutory and non-statutory suitability reviews. This is a large number of people and was fault. For most of those people, their injustice was unlikely to be significant because their reviews were not upheld.
47. However, 12 of those 268 people had reviews upheld and their accommodation was found to be unsuitable. The Council was at fault for failing to provide suitable accommodation for those people. As in Miss X’s complaint, the Council’s delay meant the 12 people had to remain in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary.
48. It is positive that the Council has since cleared the backlog which led to the delays in considering the suitability reviews. I have therefore not made a recommendation to prevent similar fault in future.

Back to top

Agreed action

49. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions.
1. Apologise to Miss X for the impact of the unsuitable housing between December 2023 and October 2024 and the frustration, uncertainty and upset she felt because of the Council’s fault. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
2. Pay Miss X £1500 in recognition of the impact of the unsuitable housing. This amounts to £150 per month for ten months, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and taking into account the circumstances of this case.
3. Pay Miss X £300 to recognise the uncertainty, upset and frustration she felt as a result of the faults identified in this decision.
50. The Council has not yet moved Miss X so it will continue to pay her £150 each month until it is able to move her to alternative accommodation. The Council will send us an update on the ongoing payments to Miss X three months from the date of my final decision.
51. Within two months of the date of my final decision, the Council will review its main housing duty decision letters to ensure they give clear information about a person’s right to request a statutory review of the suitability of their temporary accommodation.
52. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

53. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice for Miss X and 12 other members of the public. I have recommended action to remedy Miss X’s injustice and prevent the fault occurring again in future.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman