Summary: We have not investigated the suitability of the Council’s first homelessness temporary accommodation offer to Miss X because she should have used her right to ask the Council to review the property’s suitability. The Council was not at fault in how it decided a second property was suitable for Miss X.

The complaint

1. Mr Z complained about the temporary accommodation the Council arranged for Miss X and her child when she became homeless. Mr Z said the Council’s wider approach to homelessness is inadequate.
2. Mr Z said the Council’s failings meant Miss X had to stay in unsuitable housing for too long, which was detrimental to her and her child. Mr Z thinks the Council’s approach to homelessness accommodation is harmful to other residents in its area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and s34H(1), as amended)
4. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr Z and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr Z and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
9. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
10. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2).
11. When a council arranges for a person to move into temporary accommodation it sends the person an offer letter which sets out what housing the council has decided to offer. The council must also tell the applicant of their right to ask for a review of the accommodation’s suitability. The person has 21 days from the date of the letter to do this. If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation immediately. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
12. Bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation can only be used for households which include a pregnant woman or dependent child when no other accommodation is available and then for no more than six weeks.

Miss X’s temporary accommodation

13. In August 2024, the Council moved Miss X into temporary accommodation (accommodation A) and sent her a letter setting out its offer of housing along with her right to request a review of the accommodation’s suitability. Miss X did not ask for a review.
14. The Council operates a two stage complaints procedure. Mr Z made a stage one complaint on Miss X’s behalf in November.
15. Mr Z was unhappy with the Council’s stage one response and asked for a stage two investigation in early December. His complaint included that he felt the new accommodation the Council proposed to move Miss X to (accommodation B) was unsuitable for her. He said this was because accommodation B was:
• A bed and breakfast;
• In a hotspot for serious crime; and
• Far from Miss X’s child’s nursery.
16. The Council moved Miss X to accommodation B shortly after. It sent a letter which detailed her right to ask for a review of the accommodation’s suitability. Miss X did not ask for a review.
17. Shortly after Miss X moved into accommodation B, the Council moved her to a third temporary accommodation (accommodation C), which Mr Z feels is suitable.
18. The Council’s stage two response to Mr Z included that it had decided accommodation B had been suitable because:
• It was not a bed and breakfast;
• In general, it had no reason to believe accommodation B was unsafe for families. It had not received any reports of the type of serious crime Mr Z was concerned about. It said levels of crime were lower than they had been in other years; and
• Miss X could have taken one bus or one train to her child’s nursery. The bus and train stations were within six minutes’ walk of the accommodation and the cost to use them was low.

Findings

19. The Ombudsman normally does not investigate matters where a person can ask a council to review its decision. That is because there is or was a valid alternative route available to the person to obtain the outcome they want. Miss X had a right to ask the Council to review the suitability of accommodation A and there are no good reasons why she did not use that right of review. As a result, I will not investigate that part of Mr Z’s complaint.
20. I have chosen to investigate the Council’s decision concerning the suitability of accommodation B because it was not reasonable for Miss X to have pursued a review when the Council offered her accommodation C well within the review period.
21. Mr Z feels accommodation B was a bed and breakfast, which the Council disputes. However, Miss X was in accommodation B for less than six weeks so the question of whether it was a B&B is not relevant to its suitability.
22. Mr Z raised other concerns about the suitability of accommodation B, including the distance from the housing to Miss X’s child’s nursery, and about it being in a serious crime hotspot. The Ombudsman cannot question a council’s decision if it is made without fault. The Council considered Mr Z’s concerns, took into account relevant information including the availability of public transport to the nursery, and recent levels of crime in the local area. There was no fault in how the Council decided those concerns were not justified so I cannot question its decision.

The Council’s wider approach to homelessness

23. Mr Z told us he has identified what he feels are systemic and ongoing issues with the Council’s homelessness service.

Finding

24. We are considering those matters as part of another case we are investigating and do not need to consider them further here in order to come to a decision so we will not make findings on them in this investigation.

Back to top

Decision

25. I find no fault in the part of the complaint I have investigated. I will not investigate the other matter raised.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman