Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide permanent suitable housing for Miss X following 9 years in temporary accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her with a permanent home after she says she has been in temporary accommodation for 9 years at various addresses. She says some of this accommodation has been unsuitable and she wants her case to be reviewed and a permanent home offered to her.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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))

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 X says she has been in various temporary accommodation addresses provided by the Council since 2016, some which she says was unsuitable. She believes the Council should have offered her a permanent home by this time and says her current home is also unsuitable.
7. She asked the Council to carry out a review of suitability of her current accommodation under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 Part 7. The Council reviewed her case and told her in February that the accommodation is suitable for her needs. The Council’s decision gave her an opportunity to make a further appeal to the court within 21 days under s.204. We cannot determine a dispute between a homeless applicant and a council about suitability.
8. Miss X complained to us about the Council’s failure to find her a permanent home. This complaint about being in temporary accommodation for 9 years is not a matter which we can consider. The Council has a duty to provide temporary accommodation once the main housing duty is accepted. It does not have a duty to provide a permanent housing offer within any set period of time. Many thousands of applicants are in temporary accommodation in Britain and some will be so for many years.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide permanent suitable housing for Miss X following 9 years in temporary accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman