Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council placing Miss X in temporary accommodation which she says is unsuitable. It was reasonable for her to ask for a statutory review of the decision and she had a further right of appeal to the courts once this was decided.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council placing her in temporary accommodation which she says is unsuitable for her and her daughter’s needs. She says it is located outside the borough where she wants her daughter to attend high school in future and that the medical evidence which she provided was not properly considered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X was placed in temporary accommodation outside the Council’s area in an adjacent borough in 2023. She says she was told it would only be for six weeks and after this she complained to the Council that it was unsuitable. The Council told her that the six weeks related to when it owed the homelessness relief duty to her. She had been accepted for the main housing duty and listed for temporary accommodation inside the borough when it became available.
7. Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council in 2024 and when this was unsuccessful she asked for a statutory s.202 review of suitability of the accommodation under the Housing Act 1996. She had provided medical supporting evidence from a consultant.
8. The Council carried out the review and concluded that the accommodation was suitable for her needs. Its location was still within travelling distance of schools she favoured and that her medical needs did not make the property unsuitable. She had mentioned anti-social behaviour in the area near the location but it said this was a tenancy management issue and was not related the type of accommodation offered. The letter advised Miss X of her right of appeal to the County Court within 21 days if she remained dissatisfied with the review outcome.
9. Miss X did not seek a review and instead complained to us. The review was carried out correctly and gave her details of how to challenge it. We cannot overturn a review decision unless there is fault in the procedure.
10. 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.
11. It was reasonable for Miss X to seek advice to challenge the decision by way of her appeal rights.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council placing Miss X in temporary accommodation which she says is unsuitable. It was reasonable for her to ask for a statutory review of the decision and she had a further right of appeal to the courts once this was decided.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman