Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. The Council’s fault with Miss X’s housing application did not deprive her of an offer of housing. Miss X can reasonably ask the Council for a suitability review of her temporary accommodation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not give her housing application the correct priority. She says she might therefore have missed an opportunity to move. Miss X also complains her homelessness temporary accommodation is unsuitable. She says this affects her wellbeing and aggravates her medical conditions.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

Miss X’s housing register application

5. Until February 2022, the Council’s housing allocation policy gave more priority to applicants receiving the ‘support group’ element of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).
6. Miss X says her application wrongly did not have this priority from 2017. However, the Council’s final response to Miss X’s complaint said her application had ESA support group priority from 2017 to November 2020. So it is unlikely any investigation would find fault for that period now.
7. In November 2020 Miss X’s circumstances changed. The Council made two errors then:
• it created a new application, so Miss X now had two live applications. Each person should only have one application.
• it did not give ESA support group priority to the new application.
8. This meant Miss X had two housing applications, one with the correct priority and one with lower priority. That was fault. Miss X seemingly knew there were two applications because she bid for housing using both of them.
9. In February 2022 the Council’s allocation policy stopped giving more priority to ESA support group recipients. So Miss X was not disadvantaged after then.
10. I have considered whether the Council’s fault disadvantaged Miss X before then. In late 2021 and early 2022, Miss X’s bids from the account with higher (correct) priority only ranked in 57th and 81st place compared with other bidders. That was too low to be offered a property. Miss X got more waiting time priority as time passed. Therefore, even if she had placed all her bids from the account that had higher priority from the time the mistake arose, it is unlikely on balance her bids would have ranked highly enough to succeed. So any investigation is unlikely to find the Council’s fault caused Miss X to miss an offer of a property.
11. I understand Miss X’s dissatisfaction that she has not yet received a property. However, the evidence suggests that is because there are far more people seeking social housing than properties available, not because of any fault by the Council.

Suitability of Miss X’s homelessness temporary accommodation

12. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204) If the court decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must then provide suitable accommodation.
13. Miss X argues her homelessness temporary accommodation is unsuitable for her medical and disability-related needs. So, she could ask the Council for a review. The law expressly provides this route for disputes about the suitability of temporary accommodation, so we normally expect people to use this route.
14. A Council review might result in a favourable decision for Miss X. If the review decision is unfavourable, Miss X could then challenge it on a point of law in the county court. Whether a Council has properly considered the concept of suitability of accommodation for medical and disability needs, as legally defined and as applied to the individual’s circumstances, is a point of law. The court could overturn the Council's position and make a binding order if it sees fit.
15. Miss X could seek help with using the review and appeal rights if she wishes, for example, from an advice agency, law centre or solicitor. There is a possible cost implication with court action. However, help with legal costs might be available. Also, the potential cost of court action is not in itself automatically a reason for the Ombudsman to investigate instead.
16. Overall, I consider it is reasonable in the circumstances to expect Miss X to ask for a suitability review and then, if applicable, to go to court.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. On the housing application point, the Council’s fault did not deprive Miss X of an offer of housing, so did not cause a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating. On the temporary accommodation point, Miss X can reasonably ask the Council for a suitability review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman