Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of suitable temporary accommodation under its homelessness duty. The complainant requested a review of suitability and has a further right of appeal to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council providing her with temporary accommodation which she says is unsuitable. She says the Council ignored her medical needs for level accommodation and only referred to repair issues in the review of suitability.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X complained about the Council providing her with temporary accommodation which she says is unsuitable for her medical needs due to it being a flat with stairs. She asked the Council to carry out a review of suitability under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996.
7. The Council completed the review and told her that it did not consider the medical supporting evidence she provided was sufficient to confirm that she required only ground floor or lifted accommodation. The Council was satisfied that the accommodation met the requirements for suitability and was not detrimental to Mrs X’s household’s wellbeing in terms of the government’s Homelessness Code of Guidance.
8. The Council’s review decision extended to over 10 pages and addressed all the points raised by Mrs X in her complaint. The decision also advised Mrs X of her right of appeal to the County Court under s.204 within 21 days if she wished to challenge the decision.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. The Council carried out a review of suitability when Mrs X requested it and there is no evidence to suggest that it failed to consider all the information available. Mrs X commented on the 21-day appeal timescale as being too short but this is the statutory period specified in the Code of Guidance.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of suitable temporary accommodation under its homelessness duty. The complainant requested a review of suitability and has a further right of appeal to the County Court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman