Summary: Miss X complained about conditions in the temporary accommodation hostel where she moved to in 2018. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault or significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about the temporary accommodation in which she was placed in 2018. She says the heating was turned off after the winter without prior warning and that the fire safety equipment did not meet the requirements of a house in multiple occupation (HMO).

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 Miss X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Miss X has been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss X moved into a shared accommodation hostel in 2018 provided as temporary homeless accommodation. She says that in May 2019 the central heating was turned off without warning because the Council says it is not considered necessary from May until October. It told her that residents can provide their own electric heaters if they want additional heating and she had experienced this during the summer of 2018.
5. Miss X says when she used electric heaters the room was either too hot or too cold and this affected her son’s health. The Council did not consider her claim to provide evidence that the heating had caused problems. The licence agreement which she signed did not refer to heating arrangements.
6. Miss X also complained that the kitchen in the property should have fire doors according to the Council’s own information leaflet on fire safety in HMO’s. the Council originally led her to believe the hostel was an HMO, but it later corrected this. It says there is no statutory requirement for a fire door in this property and that it is provided with a smoke and fire alarm system linked to the local fire service.
7. Miss X also complained about the length of time which she has been in temporary accommodation. The Council says it cannot guarantee how quickly someone will receive an offer of housing. Miss X did receive an offer, but this was not suitable for her. It has no housing stock of its own and relies upon vacancies in housing association and private rented assured tenancies.
8. The Ombudsman cannot advise how long a person may have to wait for rehousing or recommend that an applicant receives higher priority than others on the waiting list.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault or significant 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