Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the suitability of her temporary accommodation and the Council’s decision regarding her priority level on its housing register. This is because the first part of her complaint is late, and there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigating the second part of her complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that her current accommodation is unsuitable and has caused her and her child to develop health problems.
2. Ms X also says that she should be a higher priority on the Council’s housing register.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X was placed in temporary accommodation by the Council several years ago. She says that the accommodation is unsuitable for her and her child. However, we cannot investigate this part of her complaint as it is late. I have seen no good reason why Ms X could not have come to us sooner.
9. The Council told Ms X that if her personal circumstances had changed, she could ask for a reassessment of the suitability. It remains open for Ms X to do this. There is not enough evidence of fault.
10. Ms X also says she should be a higher priority on the Council’s housing register due to her and her child’s health issues. Whilst I acknowledge her frustration, I am satisfied that the Council correctly applied its housing allocation scheme to Ms X’s case.
11. It explained to Ms X what evidence it took into account and used to work out Ms X’s priority on the housing register and her housing needs. The Council explained that it had taken Ms X’s circumstances into account, and under it Housing Allocation scheme, it awarded Ms X’s application the relevant priority points.
12. The Council also awarded Ms X points to reflect the number of years she has been waiting and explained that these points would increase with effect from June 2025. I am therefore satisfied that the Council considered Ms X’s circumstances and awarded her points in line with its allocation scheme.
13. I have not seen enough evidence of fault to question their decision. Where a Council has made a decision properly, we cannot question the merits or the outcome of the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because part of it is late and there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation into the second part of her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman