Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s offer of unsuitable temporary accommodation for one month in 2018. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council placing him in unsuitable temporary accommodation for one month in 2018. He says the Council should refund him the rental for the period he spent there.

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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• 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 and Mr X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X was offered a temporary accommodation property at short notice in 2018. This was because the property which the Council was due to offer him as permanent accommodation became unavailable. Mr X accepted the offer and signed the agreement but was not satisfied with the conditions at the house. He says there was rubbish in the garden, the bathroom had no grab handles to assist his pregnant wife and the utility meters had problems with debts left by the previous occupiers.
5. Mr X complained to the agents because the move took place over a weekend. The Council says the rubbish was removed promptly by the landlord and that Mr X was able to resolve the utility supply problems himself. Mr X did not seek a review or appeal against the suitability of the property, but he asked the Council to reimburse him for the one-month rental. The Council dealt with his complaint and at Stage 3 of the procedure offered him £100 in recognition of the initial inconvenience he experienced.
6. There is insufficient evidence that the property was unsuitable for Mr X’s needs. The external rubbish did not prevent him from moving in and was removed promptly. There are no disabled persons in his family to require aids to be fitted to it. Mr X should choose whether he wants to accept the Council’s offer but there is nothing here which would warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman