Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that her temporary accommodation is suitable. This is because it would have been reasonable for her to ask the Council to review that decision.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains her temporary accommodation is unsuitable because it is overcrowded, has mould, and is too expensive. Miss X wants the Council to move her to a larger property that is more affordable.

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 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. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a decision about the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193 of the Housing Act 1996).
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The evidence I have seen shows that Miss X complained to the Council that her temporary accommodation was unsuitable because she believed it was overcrowded and too far from her children’s schools. The evidence does not show that she raised concerns about mould or affordability in her complaints.
8. The Council assessed the property and in January 2025 decided it was suitable. It argued the accommodation was not statutorily overcrowded and was within a reasonable distance of the children’s schools. The Council wrote to Miss X with its decision and explained her right to request a review. Miss X did not request a review.
9. As paragraph 3 explained, we do not start an investigation if we decide it would have been reasonable for the person to ask for a council review. I see no reason why Miss X could not have asked for the Council to review its suitability decision. This would have been an appropriate avenue to challenge the Council’s decision and raise any other concerns about mould or the cost of the accommodation.
10. Miss X told us the Council has not dealt properly with mould in the property in the months after it decided the property is suitable. I have seen no evidence the Council has had a reasonable opportunity to deal with a complaint about these matters. It would be fair to allow the Council that opportunity. So, in line with the restriction in paragraph 4 above, I have not considered this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. It would have been reasonable for her to ask the Council to review the suitability decision. The Council has not yet had a reasonable opportunity to deal with the complaint about more recent matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman