Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s offers of temporary accommodation. He said he had to sleep in his car in 2019 after leaving accommodation offered to him. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation offered to him.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about temporary accommodation offered to him in 2019 by the Council. He left his accommodation over concerns about criminal activity and anti-social behaviour. He says he left hotel accommodation after he believed it was infested with bed bugs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X was placed in temporary accommodation when the Council accepted him as homeless in 2018. He accepted a tenancy of temporary housing in early 2019. However, he says because of criminal and anti-social behaviour he left the property and asked to be housed elsewhere.
5. The Council offered him temporary accommodation in a hotel until an alternative tenancy could be found. Mr X says he left the hotel in July when he experienced bites which he says were due to bed bugs. He decided to live in his car with his dog rather than stay in the hotel.
6. The Council offered him places in other hotels until he was offered another tenancy in August in another town. Mr X accepted the tenancy and in November he moved to another property offered by the Council.
7. Mr X complained to us when he was living in his car and said he had no accommodation he could occupy. At this time, he still retained his tenancy from early 2019 and was also able to occupy the hotel accommodation which he left. The Council says he did not give it any opportunity to investigate infestations. When he left the hotel, it did not find any evidence of infestation.
8. Mr X complained to us that he had no accommodation, but the Council made it available for him at the time. He may have felt for various reasons that it was unsuitable, but he could have asked the Council for a review of the suitability. We would expect someone to do this before complaining to us. In this case the Council considered him and offered alternative accommodation without a review being requested.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation offered to him.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman