Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s handling of an allegation against the complainants from a housing provider. This is because it is late.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainants as Mr and Ms C. They are represented in their complaint by an advocate, to whom I will refer as Miss F.
2. Miss F complains that Mr and Ms C were evicted from temporary accommodation because of an unsubstantiated allegation about drug abuse. As a result, the Council then housed them in an unsuitable, out-of-area property, and also referred the allegation to its adult social care (ASC) department.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Miss F’s correspondence with the Council.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr and Ms C were housed in temporary accommodation by the Council. In October 2020, an officer from the housing provider inspected their flat and reported they had seen evidence of drug abuse. As this was against Mr and Ms C’s tenancy agreement the housing provider evicted them, effective the following day.
8. The Council immediately arranged for Mr and Ms C to move to different accommodation. Unlike the previous flat this was accommodation was not self-contained, and it was in a different town outside the Council’s area. Miss F contacted the Council to explain this was unsuitable because of their vulnerability, and because Ms C was pregnant. After a few days the Council moved Mr and Ms C again to a self-contained flat, although still outside its area.
9. In early 2021, the Council moved Mr and Ms C once again to a self-contained flat, this time within its area.
10. In March 2021 Miss F’s organisation complained to the Council. It said the original housing provider’s allegation of drug abuse was unsubstantiated and false, and had caused Mr and Ms C significant stress and anxiety. It also complained the Council had referred the allegation to ASC despite it being unsubstantiated.
11. The Council responded in June. It acknowledged the housing provider had no evidence to support its allegation, but said it was the provider’s decision whether to evict Mr and Ms C as it was the landlord of the property. The Council said it had asked the provider to reconsider, but when it refused, the Council had sought alternative accommodation. Due to shortages as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, it had been unable to immediately find Mr and Ms C self-contained accommodation.
12. The Council also explained it had gone ahead with the referral to ASC, as it felt it was in the best position to decide what to do with it.
13. Following this, Miss F made a stage 2 complaint to the Council, in which she posed a list of procedural questions. The Council responded to these questions in May 2022, at which point Miss F referred the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

14. The law says a person should approach the Ombudsman within 12 months of becoming aware of the issue they wish to complain about. In this case, the substantive matters occurred in late 2020, but Miss F complained to the Ombudsman in May 2022. This means Mr and Ms C’s complaint is late.
15. The law does permit us some flexibility around this rule, but in order to disapply it, we must be satisfied there is a good reason for the delay, and that it is still possible to meaningfully investigate and remedy any injustice which may have occurred.
16. Miss F has explained she delayed approaching the Ombudsman because she was waiting for the Council to respond to the stage 2 complaint first.
17. The law also says the relevant authority must be given a reasonable opportunity to address a complaint, before we can accept it for investigation. I appreciate, therefore, that Miss F did not feel she could approach us before the Council responded.
18. However, even where an authority has failed to respond, we still expect complainants to refer the matter to us in good time – which we generally consider to be 12 weeks since the submission of the complaint. This is significantly less than the 10mths Miss F waited in this case, and given the substantive matter was already approximately 9mths in the past by the time she submitted the stage 2 complaint to the Council, I do not consider I can treat this as a reasonable delay.
19. Taking this together, I do not consider it appropriate to disapply the time limit in this case, and for this reason I have discontinued my investigation of Mr and Ms C’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman