Summary: Ms X complained that the Council placed her in unsuitable interim accommodation and failed to support her. We find fault in the Council’s approach. Ms X was not properly assessed, was placed in accommodation that had not been checked as being suitable and was not given a right to review the suitability of her accommodation. She was left without support and suffered extreme distress. We have made recommendations to address the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council:

• Placed her in unsuitable interim accommodation twice, and;
• Failed to support her.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Ms X’s complaint about housing issues related to the Council’s responsibility. Ms X also raises a number of other complaints about the police and other organisations. These are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke with the complainant and made enquiries of the Council.
6. I researched the relevant law and guidance.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decisions. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
9. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty (see below) and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
10. A council’s duty to those threatened with homelessness is called the prevention duty and is set out in section 195 of the Housing Act. The duty can come to an end for a number of reasons, one of which being if an applicant becomes intentionally homeless from any accommodation that was made available by the council exercising its functions under this section.
11. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness.
12. The assessment must include an assessment of:

• The circumstances that caused the applicant to become homeless or threatened with homelessness
• The housing needs of the applicant, including what accommodation would be suitable for the applicant, and
• What support would be necessary for the applicant to have and retain suitable accommodation.

13. The authority must notify the applicant, in writing, of the assessment. (Section 189A, Housing Act 1996)
14. The relief duty requires housing authorities to help people who are homeless to secure accommodation. It is set out in section 189B of the Housing Act 1996.
15. Under this duty a local housing authority is subject to a duty to take reasonable steps to help an applicant secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. Like the prevention duty, this duty arises whether the applicant is in priority need or not and does not mean the authority actually has to secure accommodation for an applicant (although it may choose to do so and if it has reason to believe a person also has a priority need at this stage, the Council must provide interim accommodation, under its interim accommodation duty, as set out in section 188 of the Housing act 1996).
16. Applicants do not have the right to request a review of the suitability of interim accommodation. If the accommodation is unsuitable, this can only be challenged by judicial review in the High Court.
17. A person may be considered to be in priority need for a number of reasons, one of which is if they are considered to be vulnerable, for example, for medical reasons.
18. A housing authority may give notice to bring the relief duty to an end for a number of reasons, including:

• The applicant has suitable accommodation available that has a reasonable prospect of being available for at least six months;
• The applicant has refused an offer of suitable accommodation that would have been available for at least six months;

19. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
20. The question of what is suitable can give rise to disputes between councils and applicants. Applicants may be disappointed that the accommodation offered does not meet all of their wishes. However, the housing authority is entitled to rely on the facts that:

• Accommodation is in short supply
• There are huge strains on their resources, and
• Perfection cannot be expected.

21. The Code says “consideration of whether accommodation is suitable will require an assessment of all aspects of the accommodation in the light of the relevant needs, requirements and circumstances of the homeless person and his or her family”. (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Councils 2006, section 17.4)
22. The Code says that housing authorities will need to consider carefully the suitability of accommodation for households with particular medical and/or physical needs.
23. Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast accommodation. It should only be used as a last resort in an emergency and then for the shortest time possible. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.24 and from 3 April 2018 17.30)
24. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
25. As the duty to provide suitable accommodation is a continuing obligation, councils must keep the issue of suitability of accommodation under review. If there is a change of circumstances the council must reconsider whether the accommodation remains suitable. ((Homelessness Code of Guidance for Councils 2006, section 17.8)

Review rights

Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a number of decisions, including:

• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (such as, in this case, the relief duty under section 189b). Section 202(1)(f) Housing Act 1996.
• Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer. (Section 202(1a) Housing Act 1996)

What happened

Prevention duty stage

26. Below is an account of the main events in this complaint. It is not meant to record everything that happened.
27. The records show that the first contact Ms X had with the Council about her housing situation was on 25 March 2021, when she made an application for housing. This is also the date that the records show Ms X is noted as having been asked to leave her parents’ house.
28. The Council says it completed a triage assessment at this point. The records I have seen are not dated 25 March 2021 but the Council says details were inputted at a later date. The Council did not complete a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) for Ms X.
29. The Council says it was aware a mental health nurse visited Ms X on 18 May 2021.
30. The first time that it is recorded the Council provided Ms X with any advice was 21 May 2021.
31. The records I have seen recording details about Ms X’s circumstances appear to have been inputted after she has been provided with a final offer of accommodation and it had been decided that the Council no longer owed her a relief duty in late July 2021.
32. What later records reveal is that Ms X had both mental and physical health issues. She was a vulnerable person.

Interim duty – provision of initial accommodation

33. Following Ms X contacting the Council again on 9 April, 23 April and 11 May 2021 the Council arranged interim accommodation for Ms X on 14 May 2021 at Bed B, through a charity. This was bed and breakfast accommodation. It sent a letter to her old address on the same date confirming it had arranged this accommodation for her under its interim duty. Ms X says she did not receive this letter.
34. The letter stated that if Ms X refused the offer of accommodation, the Council would have regarded that its duty to provide her with interim temporary accommodation would cease.
35. The Council did not complete any checks on the accommodation to ensure it was suitable for Ms X. It says it was not able to do this because of the pressures of COVID -19 at the time.
36. Ms X did not consider the accommodation suitable. She left and has complained about this accommodation directly to the charity provider. The Council said it had no jurisdiction over that accommodation.
37. On 20 May 2021 the records show that the Council contacted Ms X to arrange a housing assessment.
38. The Council says it also offered Ms X two other properties but she did not consider them suitable. Ms X has confirmed that she did not consider the properties suitable because she says she would have had to share facilities in one property and the other property was too far away from the setting she went to for her hospital appointments.

Relief duty stage

39. On 21 May 2021 the Council accepted a relief duty for Ms X and arranged accommodation for her at another bed and breakfast, (“Bed P”), (although the date on its letter to Ms X says the accommodation was from 17 May 2021). It said it had decided she had a priority need and therefore had a duty to provide her with interim accommodation. It informed her of this in writing, again addressed to an old address. Ms X says she did not receive this letter.
40. The letter set out how the Council’s duty to Ms X would end if:

• she refused a suitable offer of accommodation and there is a reasonable prospect that the accommodation would have been available for your occupation for a period of at least six months; or
• she became homeless intentionally from any accommodation which the Council made available to her as a result of the Council’s; or
• she refused a final accommodation offer of suitable accommodation or a final offer of suitable accommodation made under Part 6 Housing Act 1996

41. It appears that Ms X left this property shortly afterwards and further accommodation was secured for her at another bed and breakfast, (“Bed D”). The Council did not complete checks to ensure the accommodation was suitable for Ms X. Again, it says this was because of the pressures of working during COVID at the time.
42. The Council accepts that there is no information on file to suggest that Ms X’s personal circumstances were considered when interim accommodation was allocated. However, it says this is something housing officers do as standard practice.
43. On 4 June 2022 the records show Ms X contacted the Council again. She said that she felt unsafe at Bed D. She said Bed D was a male-only placement. (Ms X was mistaken about this). She claimed that men were taking drugs and she was unable to lock her door. She said the manager of the hotel was not available and although she had contacted the police, they would not take any action. The telephone record also said: “…She has told me she’s going to pack her bags and go to the police station, which I have advised against.”
44. Ms X said she then left Bed D and went to the police station before booking into a hotel. Ms X says that she tried to commit suicide shortly after these events. Ms X says an ambulance took her to her mother’s house.
45. On 9 June 2022 Ms X says she was evicted from her mother’s house again but was told by the Council that as she had left Bed D, the Council would not help her.
46. The records show that the Council told her it would not continue to look for interim accommodation. However, it said it would continue to look for alternative (presumably more permanent) accommodation for her.
47. Ms X complained about the accommodation she had been placed in and about the Council’s actions in placing her.
48. It appears Ms X had gone to stay at her mother’s house the night after her stay in Bed D. On 14 June 2021 Ms X contacted the Council again saying she had been asked to leave her mother’s house and had nowhere to stay that night.
49. It was noted that Ms X previously chose to leave her accommodation at Bed D. However, a referral for support was made nonetheless. The Council then learnt that Ms X had found accommodation that night with a family member.
50. The records indicate that Ms X returned to her mother’s house at some point after this. Mrs X says it was on 7 July 2021.
51. On 21 June 2021 Ms X texted the housing department at the Council to say her application for accommodation at Flat P had been accepted. The Council had first made an application for housing there for Ms X when she was staying in Bed D. The Council had noted that Ms X had “…a lot of health issues and can no longer work. [She] is on medication to stop her body rejecting kidneys.” It also reported that she was due to have further operations and would like her own space to convalesce. It was noted that Ms X had some mental health problems. The record said, “…we will put in [tenancy support officer] support,” if Ms X’s application for housing was successful.
52. The Council did not allocate a tenancy support officer (TSO). It says that it did not appear to be a concern for the housing provider and so this did not happen. It also says that the housing provider has its own housing support officer and would have provided the same level of support as a Council support officer. Therefore, it does not consider that not providing Ms X with such support would have impacted on the level of support available to her.
53. The Council said the housing provider was a registered provider of social housing. Therefore, it was required to provide accommodation that meets decent home standards. In its response to our enquiries, it said that it was for this reason that it had no concerns about the state of repair of the property. However, following our draft decision, it said that this was not the reason it was satisfied the accommodation was suitable. Instead, it says it was satisfied because the accommodation would provide Ms X with her own personal space and a private bathroom. It was located in a suitable area for Ms X and a short distance from the location she visited for medical appointments.
54. On 12 July 2021 a housing officer contacted the managers of Flat P to see if that accommodation was ready for Ms X yet.
55. On the same day Ms X emailed the Council saying that she was “really desperate” to leave her mother’s house. She was worried she was going to be made homeless again and said that she did not need to view Flat P. She said that she understood the Council was waiting for some contractors but wanted to move things forward.
56. On 20 July 2021 the Council formally made a final offer of accommodation to Ms X for Flat P. It said it had now discharged its housing duty to her.
57. The records state that officers considered the property was suitable.
58. It did not provide Ms X with the right to review the suitability of the accommodation. The Council apologises for this and says it was an ‘oversight’.
59. Ms X moved into the property.
60. On 25 July 2021 Ms X emailed a Council housing officer, Officer Z, asking her to visit Flat P. She said there were a number of issues with the accommodation, including, that:

• it smelt
• had no garden
• was not on the first floor
• had bare concrete floors with rusty nails sticking out
• was mouldy and damp, which was a specific issue for Ms X because of her health condition
• had no hot water

61. A housing officer replied to say that if Ms X wanted to make a complaint, she would have to follow the complaint’s process. She gave Ms X the complaints email address.
62. The Council says Ms X was clear that she was speaking with the housing provider to sort the issues out. However, it says that in hindsight, the Council should have made further contact with Ms X to discuss her concerns and to establish whether the repair works would resolve the situation for her.
63. On 27 July 2021 Ms X complained again about these issues, as well as complaining about the alleged issues at the other places she had been placed.
64. On the same day the Council sent Ms X a letter saying that its relief duty to assist her had come to an end. It said that the reason for this was that Ms X had been given suitable accommodation with a reasonable prospect it would continue to be available to her for at least six months from the date of the notice.
65. It did not give Ms X the right to review the decision to end its relief duty. Ms X says she did not receive this letter. It was again sent to her old address.
66. On 29 July 2021 Ms X emailed the Council to say that she had had no acknowledgement of the complaints she had made about Flat P.
67. Officer Z responded that she had “…no jurisdiction over the condition of the flat.” She also noted that Ms X had been given the opportunity to view the flat before moving in.
68. Ms X responded that while this was correct, it was only because the move in date had been extended and if she had said she didn’t want the property, she would have been left in a worse position than she had been after she refused to stay at Bed D. She said that she had trusted Officer Z and expressed how she felt she had been let down.
69. On 5 August 2021, another officer responded to Ms X’s complaint. He said, among other things:

• It is the Council’s policy not to provide accommodation for someone who voluntarily leaves accommodation provided for that person without contacting the Council first.
• Ms X’s case had remained open and the Council had provided her with accommodation at Flat P.
• If Ms X was having issues with the condition of Flat P, she could contact the Public Protection Team. (This is the Council team that helps tenants address issues with privately rented property.)

70. Following receipt of our draft decision in this case, the Council made enquiries with the housing provider. It says it was told the issues Ms X reported were mainly due to general wear and tear and that it resolved these matters. The Council says no other issues have been reported.
71. The Council also said that the housing provider is unable to share details of the discussions Ms X had with it about the flat as that information is strictly confidential.
72. Ms X escalated her complaint to the next stage. The Council addressed a number of her complaint points in its final response. In relation to the events at Bed D, the Council offered to pay for the accommodation Ms X had had to secure for herself that night. It accepted she had found the accommodation at Bed D distressing.
73. I have focussed this investigation on the fundamental points that I do not consider the Council acknowledged sufficiently.

Analysis

Failure to assess Ms X’s circumstances at prevention stage or later and failure to complete a personalised housing plan

74. Assessment is key to being able to provide a person with suitable accommodation. The Council has no contemporaneous records to show that it had an understanding of Ms X’s situation when she first referred herself to its housing team, nor that the team took any steps to prevent her becoming homeless. There are also no records to show that it had an understanding of what type of property would be suitable for her, given her particular needs. While the Council says that it did complete an assessment, its records say the first assessment was not completed until 21 May 2021. This is fault. As a part of this duty, the Council should also, once a personalised housing plan is drawn up, share this with the service user. As this was also not completed, Ms X was not communicated with in any meaningful way about the steps the Council planned to take, if any, to support her during a difficult time in her life. In Ms X’s case, this fault is more serious because she is a vulnerable person and especially needed that communication.

Interim accommodation

75. At the time the Council arranged interim accommodation for Ms X on 14 May 2022, the Council had not identified that she was in priority need. This decision came later, on 20 May 2022. It was therefore not required to provide her with accommodation but to help her with her search. However, it did help her to secure accommodation. When it did, it should have been suitable accommodation. The Council should have made checks. The law does not say that service users have a right to review the suitability of interim accommodation, but it does say that the Council must ensure that any accommodation it uses is suitable. It is very important the Council is satisfied that this accommodation is suitable precisely because the person does not have a right of review.
76. However, it does not appear that any checks were made. In the Council’s response to Ms X it said it had been assured by the various bed and breakfasts that it placed Ms X in that they were clean and well-maintained etc. But it should not rely on assurances. The Code says that when placing people housing authorities need to consider carefully the suitability of accommodation for households with particular medical and/or physical needs. There are no records to show that any particular consideration was given to Ms X’s needs. The Council said Ms X was specifically placed in accommodation that had a private bathroom. But the records do not set that out. That is not to say that it was not a consideration, but if the Council fails to keep records to evidence its consideration, the Ombudsman can not assume consideration was given.
77. Bed and breakfast accommodation should be avoided anyway, but if a Council is to use this type of accommodation, it should at least check it is suitable. This is fault. It is difficult to say if it caused Ms X an injustice. She did not consider either bed and breakfast to be suitable, but it is difficult to say, without the Council having checked the establishments beforehand, if this was the case or not.
78. In the letter the Council sent to Ms X’s mother’s address it set out that if she refused the accommodation at Bed D, the Council would regard its duty to provide her with interim accommodation would have ended. Ms X says she did not receive this and other letters and it is concerning that these letters were sent to her mother’s address when the records show she had already left that address. When the Council sent Ms X a letter in August 2021, it was already aware that she was living in Flat P and there seems no good reason why it sent her mail to an old address. The Council accepts it could have sent its correspondence to Ms X via email or called her to inform her of its decision. It says it is taking steps to ensure this will happen in the future.
79. In the Council’s letter to Ms X on 5 August 2021, in response to her complaint, the officer set out that this policy is engaged when a person leaves accommodation without informing the Council first. However, the records show that Ms X did contact the Council and that she said she was very distressed by the accommodation arranged by the Council. The records show that she was advised against leaving the accommodation but that does not mean it was reasonable for Ms X to have stayed there. The records indicate she was distressed because she did not consider the environment at the bed and breakfast was suitable. We have no way of ascertaining whether this was the case or not because the Council did not complete checks before placing Ms X there.
80. However, even if the Council was wrong to insist that it did not have to provide Ms X with further accommodation, it did not cause her an injustice. It did continue its search for accommodation for Ms X. Further, as it recognised her distress, it offered to pay for the accommodation that she sought for herself that night. I consider that any fault has been sufficiently remedied by that offer, even if Ms X refused to accept it, which she says she did.

The Council’s failure to provide Ms X with the right to review the suitability of the accommodation at Flat P.

81. The law says that applicants have the right to review the suitability of accommodation provided at the relief stage. The Council accepts it did not inform Ms X of this right. In response to our enquiries, it says that its letters usually contain the right to review.
82. However, this part of its standard letter was deleted in Ms X’s case. The Council’s explanation for this was that it was an ‘oversight’. This is not a good enough explanation for such an omission. I have made a recommendation to address this.
83. It is understandable that Ms X feels she has been discriminated against.
84. Ms X felt she had to accept the accommodation. When she moved to Flat P, she did not consider it was suitable. But, although she informed the Council of her concerns, she was told the Council had no ‘jurisdiction’ over the condition of the flat. Ms X should have been told that she could request a review of the suitability of that accommodation. This is fault and it has caused Ms X an injustice. Firstly, she felt abandoned by the Council, which caused her distress. Secondly, she says she was living in a flat with no hot water and other issues that might not have made the flat suitable.
85. The Council considered the flat was suitable when it arranged the accommodation. While it now says it considered the flat was suitable because of its location and facilities – and I accept these may also have been factors that influenced any consideration of suitability – it initially told the Ombudsman that it had no concerns about the property because it was provided by a registered social provider. That is not enough. The Council should not have placed such heavy reliance on that factor or at least if it did, it should have given Ms X the right to review, which would have meant any issues would have been picked up.
86. The Council says it has now been assured that most of the issues Ms X referred to were just general wear and tear, the implication being that it considers it unlikely that the property would not have been considered unsuitable even if the Council had given Ms X the opportunity to ask for a review. But it refused to investigate her complaints about the property at the time, saying that it had no jurisdiction to do so, so it is difficult to see how it can be confident in that view.
87. I have made a recommendation to address this fault and injustice.

The Council’s alleged failure to support Ms X

88. The fact that the Council failed to address Ms X’s concerns about Flat P is evidence that the Council failed in its duty to support Ms X. It had decided that she was owed the relief duty because she was a vulnerable person. But it did not acknowledge her concerns in any serious way until she complained formally.
89. When Ms X initially informed the Council she did not consider Flat P was suitable, when it eventually responded, it was to tell her that it considered its duty to her had ended because it had provided her with suitable accommodation. It may be that this letter was sent before Ms X’s complaint email had been read but Ms X had emailed the Council repeatedly days before the letter was sent and so it was aware that she did not consider the flat to be suitable at all. The Council effectively ignored her concerns. This is fault and it has caused Ms X distress. When she needed support, she felt abandoned. This is more concerning because, as noted above, the Council is aware that Ms X is a vulnerable person.
90. The Council informed the registered housing provider that it would allocate a tenancy support officer if Ms X was successful in her application to secure accommodation at Flat P. Initially, in its response to my enquiries, it said that it did not do so because “…this did not appear to be a concern” for the provider. The Council now says that the registered housing provider had its own support officer anyway and for the Council to have provided its own support officer would have been a duplication of efforts.
91. However, the Council had said it would provide support. It was clear that Ms X wanted some form of support and rather than make further enquiries with her to determine if she did, it closed her case. Even if the registered provider had its own support network, the fact that Ms X took her complaint about the property to the Council showed that she felt she wanted support from it. Rather than make further enquiries about this, it told her its involvement was at an end. This is fault. It caused Ms X an injustice because of the distress she went through trying to deal with the concerns she had with her property. I have made a recommendation to address this.
92. Further, the Council also failed to provide Ms X with a right to review its decision to end the relief duty and close her case. This is fault and it compounded the injustice that was caused by the failure to provide a review about the suitability of accommodation she felt she had to accept.

Back to top

Agreed action

93. Within a month of our final decision, the Council should:
1. Apologise in writing to Ms X for the fault identified in this decision.
2. Thoroughly investigate the claims Ms X made about the unsuitability of Flat P. It should produce a report to the Ombudsman and to Ms X, setting out its findings. (If it requires Ms X’s consent to access her data in order to do this, it should ask Ms X to provide this.) If it is found that the flat was unsuitable for a period of time, the Council should make a payment to Ms X in line with our Guidance on Remedies. Ms X can return to the Ombudsman if she considers any offer of payment is not sufficient.

We would expect the Council to evidence that it has made a detailed analysis on any correspondence from Ms X at the time between herself and the Council and between the housing provider. We would also expect to see a list of works required and when they were completed on the flat. Further, we would expect to see an update on the suitability of the property Ms X is now living in.

3. Make a payment of £1000 to Ms X to acknowledge the distress caused by the Council’s failure to provide Ms X with the same rights of review it allows other service-users and the failure to provide her with the support she needed.
4. Make enquiries with Ms X now to ascertain if it has a role in now providing support for her with any housing or mental health issues she currently may have.
3. Within three months of our final decision, the Council should:
1. Complete an audit of letters sent to service-users over the last two years, particularly those letters where it is usual to read that a right of review has been granted. Where the Council finds that a right of review has not been granted, it should write to the service-user and provide him with a copy of this decision. If the Council considers it is appropriate to acknowledge any fault found with a payment, it should do so. If it does not consider that is appropriate it should remind the service user that he can raise a complaint with the Ombudsman.

The Council should provide the Ombudsman with a report of its audit, setting out where it considered it appropriate to provide a payment to a service user and why and where it did not consider it necessary and the reasons why.

2. Provide training to its housing team officers on the importance of and legal requirements for:

• completing assessments and personalized housing plans on those that are homeless or threatened with homelessness
• ensuring that the officers conduct regular checks on any property they place homeless service users in to ensure those properties are suitable
• keeping accurate and full records

95. The Council should provide evidence that it has completed all of the above to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

96. I have found the Council at fault and found that that fault caused Ms X an injustice. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

97. Ms X has made allegations against a number of other organisations that we do not have jurisdiction over. I am not investigating those allegations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman