Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of the complainant’s temporary accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because there were appeal rights the complainant could have used.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has not provided him with suitable temporary accommodation. Mr X wants the Council to move him to suitable accommodation and pay compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. The court considers appeals about the suitability of temporary accommodation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes Mr X’s medical evidence and the suitability review decision.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The law says the Council must provide temporary accommodation which is suitable for the person’s needs. If the person thinks the accommodation is unsuitable they can ask for a suitability review and then appeal to the court on a point of law.
7. The Council provided Mr X with temporary accommodation. There are 25 steps to the flat. Mr X asked for a suitability review because he has a back problem and finds the stairs difficult. He finds it especially hard to get his child’s buggy up the stairs. Mr X provided the Council with medical reports. Mr X says the accommodation has made his health worse.
8. The Council considered the medical evidence and sought advice from its medical adviser. The medical adviser considered the evidence and concluded that the flat is suitable if not ideal. The medical adviser noted that the evidence did not preclude the use of stairs. The Council carried out a suitability review and decided the accommodation is suitable. The Council told Mr X he could appeal to the court. Mr X did not appeal.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The documents show the Council considered all the medical evidence provided by Mr X and it carried out a thorough review which addressed all the relevant points. Mr X could have appealed to the court if he thought the Council had not complied with the law.
10. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to decide if the accommodation is suitable. I can only consider if the Council followed the correct process in terms of assessing the suitability of the accommodation. I have not seen any suggestion of fault in the way it did this so there is no reason to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because there were appeal rights Mr X could have used.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman