Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s temporary accommodation. It is reasonable for Miss X to seek a suitability review then, if necessary, go to court about the property’s suitability. The personal injury claim is more properly for the courts. It would be disproportionate to investigate an alleged discriminatory comment in isolation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains her homelessness temporary accommodation has rotten and broken windows, a cracked roof, mould and damp. She says this results in unpleasant living conditions and excessive heating costs, has affected her young child’s health and caused her distress.

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. 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)
3. 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint letters from the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The law says the Council must provide suitable temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) In effect, Miss X is arguing the accommodation is not suitable because of its condition, the cost of heating, and its impact on her and her child. Miss X can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decision still says the accommodation is suitable, Miss X could then appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204) Whether the accommodation meets the standard of suitability as legally defined is a point of law. So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies here.
8. The review and court appeal rights are the route the law provides for such situations, so we normally expect people to use that route. The court can overturn the Council’s decision about suitability and make a binding order if it sees fit, whereas the Ombudsman can only make recommendations. Miss X could seek help taking action, for example, from a solicitor, law centre, advice agency or homelessness organisation. There might be some potential cost to court action, but Miss X might receive help with legal costs if she is eligible. Anyway, the potential cost does not in itself necessarily make it unreasonable to expect Miss X to take court action. In all the circumstances, I consider it is reasonable to expect Miss X to ask the Council for a suitability review and then, if necessary, take court action to resolve the question of the property’s suitability.
9. Miss X’s claim the conditions have damaged her son’s health is effectively a personal injury claim, which the courts can deal with. The restriction in paragraph 2 therefore applies to this point too. Liability and compensation for personal injury are not straightforward legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to consider those points. So it would be reasonable for Miss X to go to court if she wants a decision on whether the Council has caused any damage to her son’s health.
10. Miss X says a Council officer made a discriminatory comment, saying she should not complain about the condition of her housing because of her nationality. That was not part of her stage one or stage 2 complaints to the Council. We will not normally consider a complaint that has not completed the Council’s complaint procedure. Anyway, even if this point had completed the complaint procedure, it would not be a good use of public resources to investigate the alleged comment when we cannot investigate the substantive underlying matter about the property’s condition.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is reasonable for her to ask the Council for a suitability review then, if necessary, appeal to the county court about the property’s suitability. The personal injury claim is more appropriately for the courts. It would be disproportionate to investigate the alleged discriminatory comment in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman