Summary: We will not investigate this complaint because the Council accepted it was at fault and provided a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused when it responded to Mr B’s complaint about temporary accommodation it placed him in. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council failed to safeguard him when it placed him in temporary accommodation despite it being aware of how vulnerable he was at the time. He says the Council did not act in line with the Equality Act 2010. He also complains about delays in the Council’s complaint handling. Mr B says the events had significant and ongoing impact on his mental health and emotional wellbeing. As an outcome he wants the Council to apologise, improve his procedures and provide appropriate redress for the distress and impact on his wellbeing he says he experienced.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or

(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 including the Council’s responses to his complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr B approached the Council for temporary accommodation in January 2025. When the Council completed its housing assessment and risk assessment it was aware Mr B was a vulnerable adult.
6. When the Council responded to Mr B’s complaint it went through a two-stage complaint process. At stage one the Council accepted the temporary accommodation it had placed Mr B in was unsuitable and is likely to have caused him emotional distress. The Council reinvestigated the complaint at stage two when Mr B said he was dissatisfied with its initial response.
7. The Council’s second response upheld the majority of Mr B’s complaint. It said its assessing officer should have considered the wider implications the temporary accommodation it provided would have had on Mr B. It did not find evidence of discrimination but acknowledged the distress Mr B experienced during the five days he stayed in the temporary accommodation. The Council noted it had moved Mr B to more suitable accommodation one day after it became aware of his concerns.
8. The Council apologised to Mr B and explained the service improvements it had made because of his complaint. These included reminding its officers of good practice, updating its standard housing risk assessment template and deciding no longer to use the temporary accommodation where it had placed Mr B.
9. We will not investigate this complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Council acted to remedy the injustice caused to Mr B by its fault when it dealt with his complaint. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Council acted to remedy the injustice caused during its complaint investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman