Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about her temporary accommodation. It is appropriate for her to ask for a review of its suitability and the Council has agreed to do this. We will not investigate her complaint about the priority band awarded on the Council’s housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. She said the household is short of one bedroom, and has an uneven floor, which increase the risk of falls. She said the property is too far away from her doctor’s surgery and support network, and her son’s school. Further, she is not able to have her dog with her, which would help her manage her mental health. She said the unsuitable temporary accommodation is negatively affecting her mental health.
2. Ms X also complained the Council awarded her priority band B on its housing register. She says she has been bidding for properties for many years without success.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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, section 34(B))

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Homelessness and temporary accommodation

7. The Council accepted a main housing duty to Ms X in 2023, at which point it confirmed the temporary accommodation it had already arranged for her was suitable. Ms X has a statutory right to ask for a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation, and she can appeal to the county court on a point of law if she is unhappy with the review decision.
8. We will not investigate this complaint further. This is because it is reasonable for Ms X to ask for a review and the Council has told us it will carry out the review.

Housing register – priority band

9. The demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. To manage the demand, every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. Most councils operate a housing register, which records the details of those waiting for housing. All housing allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
10. This Council’s scheme has four bands.
• Band A is awarded where a person has a life-threatening illness or disability, whose housing affects their health very severely and who need an emergency move; and
• Band B is awarded where a person has a serious illness or disability, and their current housing affects their health to a marked degree and who have an urgent need to move.
11. The Council carried out a review of Ms X’s medical circumstances in 2023 and awarded band B. In its decision it set out the evidence it had considered and explained Ms X could ask for a review if she disagreed with its decision. The Council reviewed the decision through its complaints process. It confirmed Ms X needed three bedrooms and band B was correct. It said she would have priority for level access properties on the ground floor.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
13. In this case, the Council has considered the evidence Ms X provided and awarded band B, which is in line with its published scheme. It sent a letter explaining its decision and setting out relevant review rights. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify us investigating this further.
14. However, if Ms X’s health has declined since the Council considered her medical evidence, it is open to her to submit updated medical evidence for the Council to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about her temporary accommodation because she has a right of review, which is reasonable for her to use. We will not investigate about the priority awarded on the Council’s housing register because there is insufficient fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman