Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about comments made by the Council within a suitability review decision, about having to stay in unsuitable temporary accommodation unnecessarily, and that the Council should pay for her moving costs. This is because the claimed fault has not caused significant enough injustice. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about comments by made the Council within a suitability review decision. She also complains about having to stay in unsuitable temporary accommodation due to delays in the Council completing its suitability review and that the Council should pay for her moving costs.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X was housed in temporary accommodation by the Council under the main housing duty. Miss X asked the Council to complete a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation as she was suffering from domestic violence from the father of her child, Mr Z.
6. In August 2024, the abuse from Mr Z escalated and Miss X’s solicitors asked the Council to expediate the suitability review. The Council completed its suitability review in October 2024.
7. In its suitability review, the Council found Miss X’s property to be unsuitable on the basis there was a risk of domestic abuse, and the address was known to Mr Z. The Council also commented:
• It was evident Miss X had made Mr Z aware of her new address. Therefore, she had in effect made the accommodation unsuitable by revealing the address to him when she should not have done so.
• Says Miss X had suffered domestic abuse from Mr Z before she was offered the property.
• That Miss X knew Mr Z was a domestic abuser and yet chose to remain in a relationship with him and disclosed the address to him.
• The Council would seek to end the main housing duty if Miss X discloses her new address to Mr Z.
8. Miss X is unhappy with these comments and feels it was inappropriate for the Council to have referenced them within the suitability review decision.
9. I have not reached any view on whether the Council’s comments amounted to fault or not. I can understand why the Council had included the information and equally acknowledge why Miss X feels aggrieved that the information was included.
10. However, we have limited resources and so our investigations must be proportionate. In this case, even if we were to find fault with the comments made by the Council, I am satisfied this has not caused significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation. This is because the comments did not have any impact on decision around the suitability of the property. This is not to say the comments has not caused Miss X distress, but this is not significant enough to justify an investigation.
11. Further, one of Miss X’s key points is that she feels she has no recourse for challenging the comments made by the Council due to it being included in a positive review decision. However, I am satisfied Miss X has been able to challenge this via the complaints process and through our assessment of her complaint.
12. Miss X also complained she had to live in unsuitable accommodation for two months due to the time taken by the Council to complete its suitability review. Miss X said the domestic abuse escalated in August 2024. We would usually consider it reasonable for councils to complete a review within four weeks of the initial request. Therefore, there was likely only a delay of around a month in the review being completed. I don’t consider this to be significant enough to justify an investigation.
13. Finally, Miss X wants the Council to pay for her moving costs. The Council does not have any duty to pay moving costs for homeless applicants, but it could choose to make a discretionary decision to do so.
14. In this case, it is clear Miss X’s property became unsuitable for her because of domestic abuse from Mr Z. This was a new development as Miss X has stated that when she moved into the property, she did not consider herself to be at risk of domestic abuse from Mr Z. Therefore, Miss X’s need to move properties is not due to any fault by the Council and we are not likely to find fault with the Council’s decision to decline to cover her moving costs.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the claimed fault has not caused significant enough injustice. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman