Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. The Council has carried out suitability reviews. Ms X had rights of review and appeal if she disagreed with the Council’s decisions and it was reasonable for her to exercise those rights.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council had provided unsuitable temporary accommodation. She said it was unsuitable when it was offered because the Council was aware of previous antisocial behaviour by a neighbour at that time. She said it remains unsuitable due to the antisocial behaviour and because it is unsafe and the family are overcrowded. Ms X says the Council’s failings have affected her children’s development and she feels trapped in the property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
4. 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
• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. Ms X moved to her current temporary accommodation (TA) in October 2024. Soon afterwards, she reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour, Mr Y. She said Mr Y was playing loud music late at night and was generally noisy.
8. In April 2025, Ms X made a formal complaint. She said her temporary accommodation was unsuitable because Mr Y was continuing to play loud music and was generally noisy and Mr Y had deliberately caused a leak in her property. In a further complaint in May, she also said the property was overcrowded.
9. In its complaint responses the Council:
• acknowledged repeated leaks caused by Mr X and that Ms X had made several reports of ASB;
• said it had visited Mr Y, spoken to him by telephone and issued warning letters. Whilst it was sorry about the impact on Ms X, investigating and addressing ASB can be a lengthy process;
• agreed to carry out a formal review of the suitability of the TA.
10. In September 2025, the Council decided the TA remained suitable. In its outcome letter, it explained Ms X could ask for a review of its decision within 21 days.
11. The Council carried out a further review and decided in January 2026, the TA remained suitable. Again, it said Ms X could ask for a review of its decision within 21 days. Its decision shows it considered:
• the household circumstances, including the number of children;
• the lift being too narrow for a double buggy;
• lift breakdowns and the difficulty of evacuating in an emergency.

My assessment

12. ASB would not usually mean housing is unsuitable as the expectation is that this can be addressed. The Council has taken appropriate action to address the ASB reported, including issuing warning letters. Mr Y is one of its secure tenants, and it took this action in its capacity as a registered social landlord. There is no indication it should have exercised general ASB powers to address the ASB. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
13. Disrepair would also not usually mean housing is unsuitable as it can be addressed by appropriate repair work. The Council is responsible for addressing any disrepair caused by the leaks from Mr Y’s flat and there is no indication it has delayed in doing so. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
14. The Council reviewed the suitability of the TA in September 2025 and again in January 2026. Ms X had rights of review and appeal in relation to those decisions, and it was reasonable for her to exercise these rights. Ultimately, only the court could determine whether the TA was legally suitable.
15. Even if we decided it was not reasonable for Ms X to exercise those rights, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify further investigation. This is because the Council has considered relevant factors and explained the reasons for its decision. Any delay in carrying out the first suitability review did not cause sufficient injustice to Ms X to justify investigating further because the outcome remained that the TA was suitable.
16. For all the above reasons, we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she had rights of review and appeal in relation to the suitability reviews and it was reasonable for her to exercise these. In relation to the other parts of the complaint, there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman