Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council making an offer of alternative temporary accommodation which was unsuitable for the applicant’s family needs. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing any significant injustice to the complainant.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council offering her alternative accommodation not her current temporary accommodation in 2024. She says the property offered was not suitable for her son who has special needs as it was upstairs and was a very small flat. She wants to be offered more suitable 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X has been accepted by the Council as homeless and currently lives in temporary accommodation. She has made a separate complaint to us about her current accommodation but in September 2024 the Council offered her another flat as alternative accommodation.
6. Miss X viewed the property and decided that it was unsuitable for her family needs because it was at the top of a three-storey house and she and her son cannot cope with stairs due to medical problems. She also says the accommodation was a very small two-bedroom flat. She rejected the offer and complained to the Council about the unsuitability.
7. The Council told her it was unaware of her child’s medical requirements and advised that she could ask for a review of suitability and provide details of his medical needs. Miss X did not submit a suitability review request but in January 2025 her representative contacted the Council and provided documents about her family’s medical needs. She completed an online medical assessment in February 2025.
8. The Council offered Miss X alternative accommodation based in the information which it held about her. She had an opportunity to submit a s.202 review of suitability under the Housing Act 1996 part 7 but did not do so. The review would only have been to her benefit if the Council had discharged its homelessness duty following her rejection of the offer. The Council did not do this and she remains under the main homelessness duty and I her existing temporary accommodation.
9. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
10. In this case Miss X did not suffer any significant injustice resulting from the offer because it did not affect her situation under the Council’s homelessness duty and she remains eligible for future offers.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council making an offer of alternative temporary accommodation which was unsuitable for the applicant’s family needs. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing any significant injustice to the complainant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman