Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the service the Council’s temporary accommodation team provided. This is because it was not unreasonable to expect Mr B to appeal to the county court if he wished to challenge the Council’s decision on the suitability of his temporary accommodation and it is not unreasonable to expect him to pursue his claim for compensation through the courts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained about the service the Council’s temporary accommodation team provided.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 the information Mr B provided. Mr B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered his comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B sought housing assistance from the Council after he and his family had to leave their previous home. He moved into temporary accommodation which was not managed by the Council. In April 2019 the Council accepted a duty to secure housing for Mr B.
6. Mr B told us the temporary accommodation was not of a reasonable standard. He said he sent emails, pictures and video evidence to the Council but its communication with him was poor. He said the Council failed to help him with his concerns about the condition of the property.
7. Once the Council had accepted the full housing duty, Mr B had the right to seek a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation. He would then have had a right of appeal to the county court if he thought the Council’s review decision was wrong in law.
8. In April 2019 Mr B sought a review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation. The Council failed to complete its review before Mr B’s accommodation was damaged by a water leak in July 2019. We cannot now know whether the review request would have been successful and, even if it was, how quickly the Council might have been able to arrange a move.
9. When the water leak happened, Mr B contacted the police who then contacted the Council’s out of hours service. The Council found emergency hotel accommodation for Mr B and his family so they had somewhere to stay and then provided alternative temporary accommodation. Mr B told us this temporary accommodation is unsuitable for his family. He said it is too small and they must share facilities with other residents. He has also complained about the way the manager of the accommodation has treated him. For example, he has complained the manager’s decision making has been arbitrary. He asked the Council to review the property’s suitability.
10. When it responded to Mr B’s complaint the Council said it had decided in August 2020 the accommodation it had provided was suitable for his temporary housing needs. The Council said its decision letter had advised him of his right to appeal to the county court.
11. It was not unreasonable to expect Mr B to appeal to the county court if he wished to challenge the Council’s decision on the suitability of the temporary accommodation he and his family currently occupy. That is because this is the specific remedy the law provided for him.
12. Mr B is seeking compensation from the Council for the losses and damage he incurred because of the water leak into his previous accommodation. In its response to Mr B’s complaint the Council told him the managing agents had said the water penetration was the result of the actions of another tenant rather than faulty pipework. Mr B told us he feels the Council has treated him unfairly from the beginning, it is blaming him for what happened in his previous accommodation and it was the Council who placed him there.
13. Negligence and liability for loss or damage are legal matters. A court of law is the appropriate body to rule on whether someone has been negligent and is liable for the damage Mr B has described. We cannot do so. Nor do we have the power to require a council to pay damages. That is a legal matter because liability is at issue. It is for the courts to decide contested questions of law (such as alleged negligence and interpretation of maintenance responsibilities), whether damages must be paid and to enforce any award of damages. Mr B claimed compensation of over £5,000 from the Council. If he wishes to pursue his compensation claim, it is not unreasonable to expect him to pursue a remedy through the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it was not unreasonable to expect Mr B to appeal to the county court if he wished to challenge the Council’s decision on the suitability of the temporary accommodation and it is not unreasonable to expect him to pursue his claim for compensation through the courts.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman