Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider the suitability of her temporary accommodation. We discontinued our investigation. That is because events moved on. The Council re-housed Miss X to a home that meets her needs. There is no significant remaining injustice to Miss X or no worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider the suitability of her temporary accommodation.
2. She said the temporary accommodation the Council placed her in is not suitable for her family’s needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Miss X provided.
6. I also considered comments from the Council along with relevant law and guidance.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. Miss X made a homelessness application, and the Council placed her in priority band B under its housing allocations scheme.
9. The Council also placed Miss X in a two-bedroom temporary accommodation (TA) home. Miss X lived there with her two children who were under 16.
10. One of Miss X’s children has care and support needs. Miss X complained the TA was not suitable for her child or the family’s needs. Miss X asked the Council for a three-bedroom home or to be placed in priority band A.
11. The Council said a two-bedroom home is suitable for Miss X’s needs. It also said her priority band was correct.
12. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in July 2023.
13. In response to our investigation, the Council told us it re-housed Miss X in August 2023. It said Miss X’s new home meets her needs and supports her son, so she no longer wished to complain.

Analysis

14. When Miss X complained to us, she had completed the Council’s complaint process and was living in TA she felt was unsuitable.
15. However, while the Ombudsman was assessing Miss X’s complaint, the Council re-housed her into a new home which I understand Miss X is happy with. According to the Council, the new home meets Miss X’s needs and she no longer wishes to complain.
16. The situation has moved on from when Miss X complained to. She now has a suitable home, as she wanted.
17. I therefore do not consider Miss X has any significant remaining injustice and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by continuing my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I discontinued my investigation. That is because events moved on. The Council re-housed Miss X to a home that meets her needs. I do not consider there is any significant remaining injustice to Miss X or any worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman