Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation provided by the Council. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council placed her and her two children in unsuitable temporary accommodation. She says the property is overcrowded and that there have been ongoing safety, hygiene and anti-social behaviour issues within the building. She also complains the Council failed to properly address the concerns she raised.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X says the temporary accommodation provided by the Council is unsuitable because it is overcrowded and because of anti-social behaviour, hygiene problems and safety concerns within the building.
7. The Council provided evidence that when it offered the temporary accommodation in 2024, it notified Miss X of her right to request a suitability review and explained that any review request must be made within 21 days.
8. Miss X requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation several months after the statutory deadline had expired. The Council considered the request, including the concerns raised about safety, anti-social behaviour, hygiene and wellbeing, before deciding not to accept the review out of time.
9. The Council then referred the case to a Property Management Officer for a non-statutory suitability assessment. That assessment recorded both children as members of the household and considered concerns about lack of space, safety, anti-social behaviour and the condition of communal areas.
10. The assessment notes show the officer visited the property, discussed the concerns raised and recorded observations about the accommodation. The officer noted the flat itself was clean and recorded Miss X's concerns primarily related to the location, other residents and the high-rise environment.
11. The Council subsequently carried out a detailed suitability review. This considered the household composition, overcrowding concerns, affordability, safety, condition of the accommodation, children's welfare and equality considerations before concluding the accommodation remained suitable. The Council notified Miss X of the review decision and her right to appeal to the County Court
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We do not decide whether accommodation is suitable. Our role is to consider whether the Council followed a proper decision-making process. Where a council has considered the relevant information and reached a decision it was entitled to make, we cannot question the merits of that decision simply because a complainant disagrees with it.
13. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The evidence shows the Council considered the suitability of the accommodation when it was offered and was aware Miss X was expecting a second child. The Council later reviewed the suitability of the accommodation, considering Miss X's concerns about overcrowding, safety, hygiene and anti-social behaviour, before concluding it remained suitable. While there was some delay before that review was completed, it found the property was suitable.The Council also gave Miss X appeal rights, which it is reasonable for her to use.
14. We are therefore unlikely to find the delay caused a significant injustice or achieve a different outcome by investigating further.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman