Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council’s failure to make her an offer of permanent housing which has left her in temporary accommodation for over 10 years. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained to the Council in September 2025. She stated that the Council left her in temporary accommodation for over ten years and have not provided a realistic plan or timeline to secure a permanent home. She stated she has been consistently offered unsuitable 2-bedroom properties while she has a 3-bedroom housing need, despite several unsuccessful bids. She stated that this has severely impacted her mental health and well being, and that her children have also been affected.

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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 the complainant and the Council. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X complained to the Council in September 2025 and claimed that despite submitting her housing application years ago, she has been unsuccessful with bidding for suitable accommodation and that applicants on the waiting list for a shorter period secured accommodation through the Council home search scheme.
6. Initially, in 2017 Miss X instructed a solicitor to dispute the intentionally homeless decision made by the Council, as she did not occupy a property as her main principal home. The decision was later overturned and Miss X was added to the Council’s register. We investigated her complaint about re-instatement dates in case reference 22016456 in 2022.
7. Miss X’s application was received in February 2015, and she has been placed in Band 2 with priority in line with the allocation policy for homeless applicants in temporary accommodation.
8. At stage 2 of her formal complaint to the Council it addressed her concerns about any missed opportunities and reassured her that all successful bids were let to households with a higher priority.
9. The Council contacted her in October 2025 to address her concerns, and prior to this in January 2025, it agreed to place her on the direct offer list, with various adaptations as agreed with her solicitor. The Council considered factors such as medical factors and the safeguarding of Miss X and her children. The direct offer was agreed for properties no higher than third floor with a lift, not on an estate, within her areas of choice, with no internal stairs and with one double room which can fit a hospital bed.
10. It was explained to her that the waiting time for a direct offer that meets her very specific criteria could be many years.
11. There is no specific timescale for a council to rehouse an applicant from the housing register. There is a duty for the council to place someone who is eligible and qualifying for the register but some applicants may have to wait many years for an offer and some will never receive an offer of accommodation.
12. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ 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. There is no evidence of fault in the assessment of Miss X’s housing application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman