Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her property not being suitable for her household and about severe mould in the property. This is because we could not add to the Council’s investigation and an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains her property is not suitable for her household and that the property has severe mould. She feels the Council has misled her and breached its duty of care.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council confirmed it owed Miss X the homelessness relief duty. In 2019, the Council provided Miss X with accommodation to discharge its relief duty.
6. In November 2021, the Council agreed to transfer Miss X to suitable alternative accommodation. The Council said, to date, no suitable alternative accommodation had become available. The Council also confirmed Miss X’s circumstances have also changed and she now required a three-bedroom, level access ground floor or lifted accommodation.
7. In its complaint response, the Council confirmed that due to the scarcity of the type of accommodation Miss X needed, it was very unlikely it’d be able to identify a suitable property from its stock. The Council also recognised that Miss X’s current accommodation was likely no longer suitable and so Miss X could be considered homeless. The Council invited Miss X to make a homeless application but noted this could lead to Miss X being offered accommodation outside of the borough.
8. The Council also confirmed it would inspect her accommodation to consider her reports about damp and mould in the current property. The Council offered Miss X £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.
9. An investigation is not justified as we could not add to the Council’s response nor would an investigation lead to any further outcomes.
10. The Council has been open and transparent about the unlikeness of it being able to transfer Miss X to an alternative suitable property within the borough. The Council also appropriately advised Miss X she is likely to be considered homeless due to her current accommodation being unsuitable and provided her with details of all options available.
11. While the Council could potentially have made homelessness enquiries as it has enough information to suggest Miss X was homeless, I do not consider we are likely to find the Council was at fault for instead inviting Miss X to make a homeless application. This is because the Council’s approach allows Miss X to properly weigh up her options before deciding how to proceed and ensures she is not forced into statutory homelessness, potentially against her wishes. It is open to Miss X to make a homeless application to begin the process.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s investigation and an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman