Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation provided by the Council under its homelessness duty. It was reasonable for Miss X to complete the review/appeal procedure offered by the homelessness legislation with regard to suitability. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s responses to repairs issues which she reported after moving in.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council placing her in unsuitable temporary accommodation in 2025. She says the accommodation has a narrow, steep staircase and is unsuitable for small children. She also says the property is too far from her established support from friends and family. Since she moved into the property she says the tenancy start date was incorrect and she has experienced mould in the bathroom and mice infestations.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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. Miss X says she was offered temporary accommodation in 2025 which she says is unsuitable. She reported problems with disrepair which the Council says it has responded to her reports of mould which began in the colder months. Its agents confirmed that mould in the bathroom was due to poor ventilation and it also advised her about better use of windows to reduce condensation. The Council says the repair status of the property is suitable for her needs.
6. Miss X complained about mice in her accommodation and the Council arranged for a pest control application. She says that she has seen mice since the treatment and that although the Council blocked a hole in a vent they may still be present.
7. Miss X submitted a s.202 suitability review request under the Housing Act 1996 Part 7 in January 2026 challenging the location of the accommodation which is out of borough and too far from her family networks. She also says her own and her daughter’s medical needs were not met by the accommodation.
8. She later asked the Council for an extension beyond the normal 21-day timescale to prepare further submissions. The Council says granted an extension into February but has not had further response from Miss X. If someone wishes to challenge the suitability of temporary accommodation we would normally expect them to use the s.202 review procedure. If this is unsuccessful they would have a further right of appeal of the review outcome under s.204 to the County Court.
9. It would be necessary for Miss X to complete this procedure if she still believes the accommodation is unsuitable.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation provided by the Council under its homelessness duty. It was reasonable for Miss X to complete the review/appeal procedure offered by the homelessness legislation with regard to suitability. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s responses to repairs issues which she reported after moving in.it

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman