Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because there were review rights the complainant could have used.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mx A, says the Council lied and did not provide suitable temporary accommodation.

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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(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 Mx A and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and the Council’s letter accepting Mx A as homeless. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mx A complained to the Council that it had not provided a bedsit/studio property as agreed. In response, the Council said it had provided a bedsit/studio.
5. The Council accepted Mx A’s homelessness application and said it would continue to provide temporary accommodation at the same address/property. The letter said Mx A had 21 days to ask for a review if they did not think the temporary accommodation was suitable. The Council told me Mx A has not asked for a review.
6. Mx A told us they live in a unit which has a room, bathroom and kitchen area. They say it is unsuitable because they have a baby.
7. Councils are required to provide temporary accommodation which is suitable for the applicant’s needs. The law provides review rights for people who think a council has provided unsuitable accommodation. Mx A could have asked for a review. It is reasonable for them to have done this as it is the correct way to challenge decisions about the suitability of temporary accommodation.
8. Mx A accused the Council of lying. I will not investigate this issue because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council says it offered a bedsit/studio property and this is consistent with Mx A’s description of what the Council has provided.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because Mx A could have used their review rights and because there is insufficient of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman