Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s housing. Miss X can await the Council’s review of her temporary accommodation’s suitability. She could reasonably use rights to take court action on some points. Miss X and the Council can continue dealing with each other about the information needed for the Council to consider medical priority for social housing. The complaint about events in 2013 is late and we would be unlikely to reach a clear enough view on it now.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to her homelessness temporary accommodation and her priority for social housing. She says this has resulted in her and her child living in unsuitable accommodation, distress and damage to her health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. I have only considered points that Miss X took through the Council’s complaint procedure. Of those points, the main issues were the condition of Miss X’s homelessness temporary accommodation and her priority for social housing.

Condition of temporary accommodation

9. Miss X says the accommodation has problems including mould and infestations of mice and other vermin, which she says affect her particularly badly because of a phobia. Temporary accommodation must be suitable for the individuals involved. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Essentially, Miss X argues her accommodation is unsuitable. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation's suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council's review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If it decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204) If the court decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must then provide suitable accommodation.
10. Miss X recently got legal advice and asked the Council for a suitability review. That is the process the law provides for such situations. Miss X is able to use this process and is awaiting the Council’s decision. Therefore it would not be appropriate for the Ombudsman to consider the accommodation’s suitability.
11. If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is suitable, or if the Council does not issue a review decision within 56 days of the request, Miss X will have the right to appeal to the county court on point of law for 21 days. Whether accommodation is suitable is a legal point. So the restriction in paragraph 3 would then apply. The law expressly provides this route for disputes about the suitability of temporary accommodation, so we normally expect people to use it. Miss X has been able to seek legal advice, so could do so again. Miss X might also get help appealing from a housing advice organisation or other advice agency. The possible cost of court action does not automatically make it unreasonable to expect Miss X to appeal. Miss X knows how to establish if she can get help with legal costs. Even if she could not get such help, she could ask the court for her costs if her action succeeds. In the circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect Miss X to take court action if the Council’s review decision is unfavourable.
12. Miss X also says her temporary accommodation’s condition has damaged her health. That is a claim of personal injury. The courts can consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 3 also applies here. The possible cost of court action does not in itself automatically mean the Ombudsman should investigate instead. Liability and compensation for personal injury are not straightforward legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide this. So it is reasonable for Miss X to go to court for a decision on this point.

Priority on housing register

13. Miss X also asked the Council to reconsider her priority for social housing. On 16 August 2023, the Council emailed Miss X saying her current Band B priority was correct because her circumstances were not an emergency warranting Band A. Miss X had the right to ask the Council to review that decision and the Council should have told Miss X of that right. (Housing Act 1996, sections 166A(9)(c) and 166(1A)) The Council’s email did not tell Miss X about her review right.
14. However, any possible lost opportunity to seek a review here does not seem significant because soon afterwards events moved on, with Miss X asking the Council to give her medical priority for social housing. The Council has told Miss X she has not provided the medical information it asked for in order to consider medical priority. It is for Miss X to provide that information and the Council then to consider it. We cannot currently achieve more on the main point here, which is whether Miss X should have more housing register priority.
15. Miss X also complained the Council wrongly removed her from the housing register in 2013. The restriction in paragraph 4 applies to this point. Miss X could reasonably have complained to us sooner about this. Also, it is unlikely we could now reach a clear enough view about events in 2013 and their implications for Miss X’s position today.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman