Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the suitability of her temporary accommodation because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. We will not investigate the Council’s decision not to award medical priority on its housing register because Ms X had the right to ask for a review of that decision and it was reasonable for her to exercise that right.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council did not provide any meaningful support with rehousing after she reported an attempted break-in in January 2025. As a result, she says she and her child remain in unsuitable housing that is significantly affecting her mental health.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X reported an attempted break-in at her temporary accommodation (TA) in late January 2025. She said she no longer felt safe in the TA.
6. The Council acknowledged her request for a review of the suitability of her TA but then said she was out of time to ask for a review because it was more than 21 days since its letter offering TA dated March 2024.
7. Ms X made a formal complaint in March 2025 because she said, despite her M.P also having contacted the Council, she had not been contacted about rehousing. She also said the TA was unsuitable because damp and mould had not been properly treated, which was affecting her child’s health. She also said she had been promised a medical assessment, which had not been done.
8. Ms X completed a request for a medical assessment in early July 2025. She explained the impact of the break-in on her mental health and that her child was affected by damp and mould. The outcome of the medical assessment, in mid-September, was that the Council did not agree there was a medical need to move. It said Ms X could ask for a review of its decision if she disagreed with it.
9. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said it took action to address the damp and mould reported in May 2025, a month after it was reported. It carried out an inspection on 11 July and carried out further works in early September.

My assessment

10. The Council refused to carry out a non-statutory review of the suitability of the TA in January because it said she was out of time to request a review by reference to a decision letter dated March 2024. This was incorrect because Ms X had only moved to the current TA in October 2024 and because there was a material change of circumstances, which meant it should have considered whether the TA remained suitable for her.
11. That said, a break-in would not necessarily make the TA unsuitable, because the risk of a further incident could have been addressed by repairing the door and, if appropriate, by additional security measures. The Council later considered whether the impact on Ms X’s mental health meant she should be awarded medical priority on its housing register, but decided there was no medical need to move. This supports the view that, even if a review had been carried out, the Council was unlikely to have said the TA was unsuitable due to the break-in.
12. Further, damp and mould not necessarily make TA unsuitable, because we would expect councils to address the problem. The Council said it did so on two occasions in 2025 and there was no undue delay in carrying out works after Ms X reported the problem. There is no evidence to suggest any damp and mould in the TA cannot be treated and therefore it was unlikely to make the TA unsuitable.
13. For the above reasons, it is unlikely that further investigation would lead to a different outcome.
14. Whilst there does appear to have been a lack of communication with Ms X about how it considered whether the TA was suitable, in the circumstances of this case, this did not cause sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
15. Ms X had the right to ask for a review of the Council’s decision she did not meet its criteria for medical priority, and it was reasonable for her to exercise that right.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because further investigation into the suitability of her temporary accommodation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Ms X had the right to ask for a review of the Council’s decision not to award medical priority and it was reasonable for her to exercise that right.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman