Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s communication with him concerning his housing situation. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I will refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s housing officer’s attempts to offer him move-on accommodation. He says that he feels he is being bullied to leave his current hostel accommodation.

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.

(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. He has been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X has been living in supported hostel accommodation for two years. The Council approached Mr X about moving to rented accommodation, but he says he did not like the Council Officer’s manner of discussing the move. He was offered a rented property but turned it down. The Council told him that this was a reasonable offer and that he could not remain in the hostel indefinitely.
5. Mr X says he would prefer to remain in the hostel until he is offered a property which he likes. The Council says it will make one more reasonable offer and then may re-assess its housing duty to him. The Council’s says its officers have tried to explain the realistic options which are available to Mr X for move-on accommodation.
6. 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. The Council has to find the most affordable accommodation which Mr X could afford, and this involves its officers explaining the facts of his housing options. There is no evidence that the officers have acted unreasonably in this procedure.
7. The hostel is not operated by the Council and it did not secure the current place for Mr X there. The Ombudsman has no authority to investigate any actions of the hostel staff.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman