Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s review of suitability of temporary accommodation. It was reasonable for Miss X to challenge the review by way of an appeal to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. She asked the Council for a review of suitability in 2024 but the decision was that the accommodation was suitable. She says the accommodation is not affordable and has had incidents of mouse infestation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X says the temporary accommodation provided by the Council under its homelessness duty is unsuitable for her needs. She says that it is unaffordable on her current salary and does not provide any spare income once all overheads are paid. She also complained about reported mouse infestation on more than one occasion.
7. The Council carried out a review in 2024 and issued a ‘minded to’ decoison that the property was suitable for her needs. Miss X submitted more evidence and in August 2024 the Council issued a final review decision under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996. The Council had considered all Miss X’s finances based on her income and bank statements and concluded that the accommodation was affordable.
8. Miss X did not raise the issue of rodents in her review request but was concerned about being isolated from her mother and that there was litter and crime in the area. The Council says the distance was not significant and that she owns a car and the petrol costs are minimal for the journey. It advised her to report any
9. The Council’s decision gave Miss X sufficient information about how to appeal the decision to the County Court under s.204 of the legislation if she wished to do so. We cannot overturn the Council’s decision on a homelessness application; we can only consider if the Council followed the correct procedures in terms of its homelessness duty. There is no evidence to suggest that there was fault in this.
10. It was reasonable for Miss X to challenge the Council’s decision by way of an appeal if she disagreed with the review outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s review of suitability of temporary accommodation. It was reasonable for Miss X to challenge the review by way of an appeal to the County Court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman