Summary: Ms X complained about the Council placing her in unsuitable temporary accommodation. She also complained about its failure to respond properly to complaints about pest control and the review of her accommodation. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and it was reasonable for her to challenge the suitability of the accommodation in the court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains that the Council placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation following her homeless application. She says the stairs in the property make it unsuitable for her with her young children and medical issues which it has not accepted. She also complained about the Council’s procedure for challenging her housing situation.

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 is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Ms X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms X complained about the private sector-leased temporary accommodation which the Council allocated to her in 2018. She said it was unsuitable for her needs and that she was struggling with the stairs with two small children and was pregnant with another. She wanted their Council to move her to bigger accommodation without stairs and preferably more affordable social housing.
6. Ms X applied for a review of the suitability of her accommodation and obtained letters of support from a social worker and a physiotherapist in June 2019. The Council told her that its own medical assessor did not consider that she required level access housing because her she did not have sufficient medical needs.
7. In July Ms X engaged the services of a solicitor concerning her review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation. There is a right of appeal to the courts for people who wish to challenge suitability. Following the solicitor’s correspondence, the Council accepted that Ms X’s change in circumstances meant that the property was no longer suitable because of her pregnancy and the stairs. It did not consider that this applies to when she was originally allocated the flat.
8. The Council agreed to put her on the transfer list for a move to more suitable larger temporary accommodation. It told her that this would not be limited to offers of level access accommodation because her medical needs did not require this. The fact that she has young children is not a medical reason in itself for requiring level accommodation and she does not have sufficient medical needs for additional priority. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to question the merits of the Council’s medical assessment of Ms X’s situation.
9. Ms X also complained about bed bug infestations which she says costs her over £180 for two treatments. The Council says it organised one pest control treatment free of charge and that the tenancy agreement makes it clear that tenants are responsible for bed bug treatment. She complained about the attitude of the officers advising her about the treatment but there is no evidence to suggest they gave her information which was inappropriate.
10. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
11. In this case the Council has given Ms X advice about her housing allocation and its services and it was reasonable for her to appeal to the courts if it had refused to accept the challenge to the suitability of her accommodation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and it was reasonable for her to challenge the suitability of the accommodation in the court.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman