Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. She has a right of appeal against the Council’s decision the temporary accommodation is suitable and it is reasonable for her to exercise that right.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the temporary accommodation the Council provided from October 2023 is unsuitable. She said she was struggling with the external stairs, she had reported disrepair that was not addressed, that the landlord had used his key to enter her property without her permission, and that the property is a house in multiple occupation (HMO), but is not properly licensed, nor have relevant safety certificates been provided.
2. Ms X said she had struggled physically and emotionally as a result of the unsuitable temporary accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

8. The Council arranged interim accommodation for Ms X at property A after she became homeless. Property A became temporary accommodation in November 2023 when the Council accepted the main homelessness duty. Ms X asked for a review of the suitability of the property, but the Council said this was sent to an incorrect email address. In December 2024, the Council contacted Ms X to check the temporary accommodation was suitable. It said she raised some concerns but it decided property A was suitable at that stage. It registered a request for a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation in March 2024..
9. In May 2024, Ms X’s legal representative:
• asked the Council to carry out a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) inspection in light of the disrepair in the property;
• asked for evidence the Council had inspected the property before offering it and had seen relevant safety certificates;
• raised concerns the landlord had entered property A with a Council officer without Ms X’s permission; and
• asked for an occupational therapy (OT) assessment to determine if Ms X needed any disabled adaptations.
10. In late May 2024, the Council sent a letter saying it was “Minded to” decide the temporary accommodation was suitable and setting out its reasons.
11. A further inspection was carried out in June 2024. In July the Council sent relevant safety certificates to Ms X’s legal representative. Also in July, the Council issued its decision that the temporary accommodation was suitable. Amongst other things, it said:
• it did not have evidence to show property A was unsuitable because of the external stairs;
• it did not consider the distance from the child’s school and Ms X’s support networks made property A unsuitable;
• when the landlord and a Council officer visited the property in May 2024, it understood that all tenants in the building had consented. When informed otherwise, it arranged a further visit in June 2024 when Ms X was present;
• in the May visit, the Council identified a kitchen cupboard and worktop needed replacing, and there was no space for a washing machine. It did not identify issues with hot water or heating, nor with windows not closing properly and saw no sign of mould;
• in the June visit, the Council identified some other disrepair issues and asked the housing provider to address them; and
• the responsibility for carrying out an HHSRS inspection and for HMO licensing rested with Council B, in whose area property A was situated.

My assessment

12. When it issued its decision that property A was suitable, the Council explained Ms X had a right of appeal. It is reasonable for Ms X to exercise that right if she disagrees with the decision. Therefore, we will not consider further whether the temporary accommodation is suitable.
13. Whilst there may have been a delay in registering Ms X’s concerns as a request for a review of the suitability of property A and some delay in carrying out that review, this did not cause Ms X a significant injustice because the Council ultimately decided it was suitable. There is therefore insufficient injustice to justify investigating that aspect of the complaint further.
14. Although the Council accepts it did not respond specifically to the legal representative’s complaint about its failure to address disrepair in property A, it had addressed those concerns through two visits to the property and it considered the question of disrepair at some length in its suitability review decision. The Council also addressed the complaint about the landlord accessing property A without consent in that decision. Since these are key issues in the suitability decision, which is appealable, and so may be considered by the court, it would not be appropriate for us to investigate them further.
15. It is the responsibility Council B, in whose area the property is situated, to consider whether the building is an HMO and requires a licence, and to consider whether an HHSRS inspection is needed. Any concerns about Council B would need to be considered separately.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she has a right of appeal against the Council’s decision her temporary accommodation is suitable, and it is reasonable for her to exercise that right.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman