Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of suitable temporary accommodation since 2022 and its assessment of a housing application. It was reasonable for Miss X to ask for a review of suitability of her accommodation and there is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice in her housing application assessment which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s provision of temporary accommodation since 2022 which she says has been unsuitable for her needs. She also says her housing application banding priority was changed several times without a proper explanation which led to her being confused about bidding on vacancies.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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 the complainant and the Council. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says the Council placed her in various temporary accommodation properties since 2022. She says that her current accommodation which she accepted in 2024 is also unsuitable for her needs.
6. We will not investigate the provision of accommodation before her current placement because these matters took place outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints. The time for receiving complaints is from when someone became aware of the matter they wished to complain about, not when they complained to the Council or it issued its final response. We would expect someone to complain to us within a year, even if they were dissatisfied with the time the complaints procedure was taking.
7. The Council says that Miss X could have requested a suitability review of the offer of accommodation at any of her addresses since 2022 and could still seek such a review now under the provisions of the Housing Act 1996 Part 7.
8. We cannot decide if accommodation under the homelessness legislation is unsuitable and it was reasonable for Miss X to sue the review procedure offered by the legislation. If the review is unsuccessful she will have further rights of appeal to the County Court.
9. I have considered the Council’s changes to Miss X’s housing application priority since 2024. The Council changed its priority banding system from four alphabetical bands to fourteen numerical ones in 2024. Miss X was moved from Band B to Band 13. She challenged this and the priority was changed to Band 9 when her residency time was re-considered.
10. However, the Council erroneously gave her the priority for being homeless and it bed and breakfast accommodation but in fact she is in council temporary accommodation. This meant that she qualified for band 11 not band 9 and the category was changed back accordingly.
11. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice for the short period which she was on the lower banding and she did not make any successful bids when she was on the banding higher than her housing needs.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of suitable temporary accommodation since 2022 and its assessment of a housing application. It was reasonable for Miss X to ask for a review of suitability of her accommodation and there is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice in her housing application assessment which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman