Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not provided a three bedroom home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because there were review rights the complainant could have used.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council has not provided a three bedroom home. Ms X wants the Council to provide a three bedroom home as soon as possible.

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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X became homeless in December and the Council provided emergency accommodation in a hotel. Ms X has two children and had to share facilities in the hotel. The law says councils should not house families in hotels for longer than six weeks. Ms X stayed in the hotel for about two weeks.
5. Ms X has two children and would usually be eligible for a two bedroom property. The Council accepted, in December, that she needs three bedrooms for medical reasons.
6. A few days later the Council offered two bedroom permanent accommodation with a social tenancy. Alternatively, the Council said Ms X could remain in the hotel but it did not know how long she would have to wait for a three bedroom home. The Council gave Ms X an offer letter which said Ms X could accept the offer, and ask for a suitability review, if she thought the property was unsuitable.
7. Ms X accepted the offer and did not ask for a suitability review. Ms X applied to join the housing register and is registered for a three bedroom home.
8. The Council agrees Ms X needs three bedrooms but it offered a two bedroom property as an alternative to staying in the hotel. Ms X could have chosen to remain in the hotel but it is unknown how long it would have taken for a three bedroom home to become available. In the interim Ms X would have remained in the hotel and she has explained how difficult that was. The offer does not suggest fault but was a pragmatic approach to improving Ms X’s housing situation and was an offer she could have declined. If Ms X had refused the offer, which was for a permanent social tenancy, the Council may have offered temporary or private rented accommodation, both of which have less security than a social tenancy.
9. If Ms X thought the offer was unsuitable she could have asked for a suitability review and explained about her bedroom need. The Council would have considered the suitability of the offer. If the Council had decided the offer was unsuitable it is impossible to say how long Ms X would have had to wait for a three bedroom home to become available.
10. The Council accepts Ms X has a three bedroom need and she is registered for a three bedroom property on the housing register. The Council will match Ms X with a suitable three bedroom home when one becomes available. We have no power to offer Ms X a larger home or tell the Council it must move Ms X outside the usual process.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Ms X could have used her review rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman