Summary: We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her homelessness application. This is because it was reasonable for the complainant to use the appeal procedure to challenge the Council’s decisions on her application. It is unlikely that a further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Summary: Miss Y complained that the Council left her and children in unsuitable and overcrowded Temporary Accommodation with no hot water, one accessible radiator and mould and leaks. She says the property is too small and Council do not reply to her applications for a higher band request. She says the Council are neglecting her, impacting her mental health and her ability to care for her children.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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 information provided by the Complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss Y approached the Council for help in 2024. The Council accepted the homelessness decision because it was satisfied Miss Y was eligible and priority need. They then arranged Temporary Accommodation in March 2024. Miss Y submitted a stage 1 complaint to the Council in August; she said the property was unsuitable due to lack of hot water, disrepair and overcrowding. The evidence suggests the Council resolved the lack of hot water and acknowledged her wish for a larger property but mistakenly reported she had Band 2 priority and a homelessness star in August 2024. This complaint was not upheld.
7. She escalated to stage 2 in August, the Council partly upheld this complaint, acknowledging that she was in Band 3 and had not been awarded a homelessness star. This was the correct banding priority for her application so we cannot say that this caused any significant injustice.
8. The Council allocated Miss Y a one-bedroom self-contained property in September 2025. Miss Y complained that the property was unsuitable due to several issues of disrepair, including infestation, water damage and mould. She says the council had not taken into consideration her disabilities or family size.
9. The Council carried out a Section 203 review and determined that the medical evidence submitted did not indicate that the current housing was unsuitable. They raised a series of investigations and found no evidence of infestation. The evidence shows they raised a series of works to be completed in November and December. The Council also determined that the property was not overcrowded according to their guidelines due to the age of her children. They upheld their previous decision that the property is suitable.

Miss Y had a statutory right to appeal to the county court about the Council’s decision on accommodation suitability under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996 part 7. The restriction in paragraph three therefore applies. Miss Y could have used this right of appeal and so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her homelessness application. This is because it was reasonable for the complainant to use the appeal procedure to challenge the Council’s decisions on her application. It is unlikely that a further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman