Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability and disrepair of temporary accommodation provided by the Council under its homelessness duty. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. Ms X could have asked for a statutory review of the suitability of her accommodation with a further appeal to the courts.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the temporary accommodation provided by the Council did not meet basic living standards. The property had mould, damp and inadequate heating. Upon reporting the issues, she says that the work carried out to the property in response was in the form of temporary fixes rather than the comprehensive and permanent repairs that were required. As a result, she says she had to pay large electricity bill due to the inadequate heating and insulation.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X was offered and accepted temporary accommodation from the Council in mid-2024. She says that the winter months showed that the property suffered from condensation and dampness which led to mould growth in many places. She reported the problems to the Council and it carried out various repairs, including the instalment of a positive pressure unit and mechanical extraction in the kitchen and bathroom to help alleviate the damp issues. The system improved the issues but led to a much higher electricity bill than Ms X had been able to budget for.
6. Ms X susbequently moved to other accommdoatio but she made a comlpaint about the conditions and the ourstanding energy bill. The Council subsequently offered her £150 towards her costs and inconvenience.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. It was reasonable for Ms X to ask the Council for a review of suitability under s.202 of the Housing Act 1995 if she belived the property was in disrepair and uninhabitable. The offer of the accommodation gave her details of how to do this. She could have asked for a review at any time after the disrepair became serious.
8. The evidence shows that the Council responded to her repair request and did what it could to alleviate the problems. Landlords can only respond to repairs issues as they are reported and the same process would apply to permanent accommodation equally.
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 suitability and disrepair of temporary accommodation provided by the Council under its homelessness duty. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. Ms X could have asked for a statutory review of the suitability of her accommodation with a further appeal to the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman