Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not providing the complainant with a suitable home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have asked for a suitability review.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council has not provided a permanent home which is suitable for her family’s needs. Ms X wants the Council to move her to a suitable, permanent home.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Temporary accommodation

4. When a council accepts someone as homeless it has a duty to provide suitable accommodation. It can provide temporary accommodation, before providing a permanent home, but it must be suitable. If the person does not think a council has provided suitable accommodation they can ask for a suitability review.
5. People bid for a permanent home. The Council awards different levels of priority to help it determine priority for a home. People bid for a property and the Council offers it to the person with the highest priority. The shortage of social housing means some people wait many years before placing a successful bid.

What happened

6. Ms X lived in temporary accommodation with her two sons. It was a two bedroom flat. She had lived there since 2007 and has been on the housing register since 2007. Ms X says she had a suitability review in 2015 and the property was found to be unsuitable.
7. Ms X is registered for a three or four bedroom property. She has medical priority for one child and reasonable preference as an accepted homeless applicant. Ms X has extra priority because she is a carer.
8. In response to her complaints the Council explained that she had the correct priority on the housing register. It invited her to ask for a suitability review. The Council says Ms X has not asked for a suitability review.
9. Ms X has now moved to different temporary accommodation. She says it is too small and is still temporary.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I have reviewed the allocations policy and Ms X is in the correct band for her circumstances. Ms X will only be offered a permanent home if she makes a successful bid. Ms X can increase her chances of success by bidding as often as possible and for a wide range of property types. Ms X’s priority on the housing register may need to be reassessed to reflect the circumstances in her new accommodation.
11. I also will not start an investigation because Ms X could have asked for a suitability review if she thought her previous temporary accommodation was unsuitable. It is reasonable to expect her to have done this because this is the mechanism for accepted homeless applicants to challenge a council’s decision that their temporary accommodation is suitable.
12. Ms X says her accommodation was found to be unsuitable in 2015. I will not pursue this because it happened six years ago and the law says people should complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of an issue that affects them.
13. Ms X says her new accommodation is too small. Ms X can ask for a suitability review of her new home.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Ms X could have asked for a suitability review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman