Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation and the banding of Miss X’s housing application. It was reasonable for Miss X to challenge the suitability of accommodation in the courts and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the assessment of her application which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council placing her in temporary accommodation which is made up of shipping containers. She also says the banding she was awarded on her housing application does not take into account the mental health problems caused to her and her daughter by the unsuitable accommodation.

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 the decision making, 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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X says she was allocated unsuitable temporary accommodation when she presented as homeless to the Council. She was placed in a modular housing scheme which she says comprises shipping containers turned into homes and is unsuitable because of excessive heat in summer and cold in winter.
7. The Council says the homes are designed for the purpose and that it has several schemes of such homes in its area. The scheme where Miss X lives has been in use since 2020 and these schemes have won praise from housing design bodies. It says the heating and insulation are adequate as is the size but if Miss X wished to challenge the suitability, she could do so through the solicitors who represented her in her housing allocation review.
8. Miss X asked the Council to increase her priority on the housing list because she says the unsuitable accommodation is causing mental health problems for her and her daughter. The Council reviewed her housing application and considered her medical evidence and asked its independent medical advisor to assess it. The review outcome was that the assessment of Band C homeless with 3 bedroom priority was the correct banding for her housing needs.
9. The Ombudsman 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. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation and the banding of Miss X’s housing application. It was reasonable for Miss X to challenge the suitability of accommodation in the courts and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the assessment of her application which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman