Summary: Mr X complained about the suitability of temporary accommodation provided by the Council when he presented as homeless in 2020. We should not exercise discretion investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for him to ask for a review of the accommodation and appeal to the court if this was unsuccessful.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council offering his family unsuitable temporary accommodation in 2020 when he was homeless. He says he was placed in a commercial hotel and that staff employed there had entered his room without knocking. He felt unsafe in the hotel and left to return to his parents’ home.

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 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. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X was accepted by the Council as homeless in 2020. He and his partner were placed in temporary accommodation in a commercial hotel by the Council during the COVID-19 pandemic because this was the only accommodation immediately available.

5. Mr X says that staff from the hotel entered his room without knocking and he found this breach of his privacy unacceptable. He complained to the Council but when the Council contacted him later, he had left the hotel and returned to his parents’ home.
6. The Council says the accommodation was suitable for Mr X’s family needs and that it could have discharged its duty to him under the homelessness legislation. Mr X could have asked for the suitability of the hotel to be reviewed but he left without informing the Council. He could have asked for a review, but the Council has indicated that it would not uphold it and he would have then had a right to appeal to the County Count.
7. The Council says it is prepared to offer Mr X one further offer of temporary accommodation should he ask for it.
8. The Ombudsman does not normally determine the suitability of temporary accommodation where there is a right of review and appeal to the courts available. Mr X could have requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation, but he chose to leave it. When the Council became aware of this it offered further accommodation if he requested it. This offer is still available to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We should not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for him to ask for a review of the accommodation and appeal to the court if this was unsuccessful.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman