Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of interim accommodation under its homelessness duty or its assessment of a housing priority after accepting the main housing duty. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council placing her in hotel accommodation when she made a homeless application in 2023. She says the accommodation was unsuitable for her son’s medical needs. She also says her current temporary accommodation is unsuitable because the rooms are too small and she requires a 3-bedroom home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocation policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X applied to the Council as homeless in 2023. The Council placed her initially in hotel accommodation for a period of 5 weeks under the Relief Duty until she was offered alternative accommodation. She refused the first offer but accepted other accommodation which she believes is also unsuitable because she says she requires an additional bedroom for her son.
6. The Council asked for a medical assessment of Miss X’s needs following her submission of a medical form and supporting evidence. It says the evidence for her son’s needs was 4 years out of date and required more recent evidence but its medical advisor recommended ground floor or lifted accommodation on the available information.
7. Miss X says her current home is unsuitable because of its size and asked the Council to give her application priority Band 1 for 3 bedrooms. The Council told her she does not meet the threshold for Band 1 which is only for urgent priority cases. She could ask for a further medical assessment but would require evidence which met the high threshold for Band 1 medical need.
8. Miss X emailed the Mayor’s office in April 2024 which was passed to the housing department later. This was out of time for a statutory review of suitability but the Council reviewed her request under its complaints procedure at both stages. The final review did not uphold her complaint.
9. We will not investigate the provision of interim accommodation under the relief duty. It is acceptable for council's to use hotel or bed and breakfast accommodation for a period of up to 6 weeks and this is what took place. Miss X has not provided medical information which meets the threshold for additional priority to Band 1. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.
10. Miss X could have asked for a statutory review of suitability for the temporary accommodation she is in once the Council accepted the main housing duty. She did not do so within the 21-day period and instead sent an emailed complaint to the Mayor’s office which was treated through the complaints procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of interim accommodation under its homelessness duty or its assessment of a housing priority after accepting the main housing duty. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman