Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the suitability of accommodation provided by the Council after he became homeless. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the suitability of interim accommodation provided by the Council after he became homeless. He said it was not close enough to his family and the Council did not properly consider his medical needs. He said the Council is discriminating against him by not recognising his medical needs. Mr X said the Council continues to provide unsuitable accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue 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), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X approached the Council for homelessness assistance. The Council accepted the relief duty and provided interim accommodation. Mr X subsequently contacted the Council and said the property was not suitable because of his medical needs and the distance from his support network. The Council moved Mr X to different accommodation. It arranged for Mr X to receive a meal because of the lack of cooking facilities. The Council recognised there were still some issues with the accommodation and offered Mr X the opportunity to move. Mr X declined. The Council continued to look for alternative accommodation in Mr X’s preferred area.
8. Although Mr X is unhappy with the accommodation provided by the Council, we will not investigate this complaint. The Council provided accommodation based on his assessed needs and provided him alternative accommodation when he said that was not suitable. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
9. The Council subsequently decided it did not owe Mr X a homelessness duty. It wrote to him ending the relief duty. That meant Mr X went without accommodation for just over a week. Mr X asked the Council to review that decision. The Council upheld the review and reinstated accommodation for Mr X.
10. Although the Council’s ‘intentionally homeless’ decision meant Mr X went without accommodation, we will not investigate. The Council was entitled to make that decision. Any appeal against that would be for the County Court, not the Ombudsman. The Council carried out the review without delay. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with that to justify our involvement.
11. Mr X remains unhappy with the temporary accommodation currently provided by the Council. The Council has accepted the main housing duty to Mr X. Mr X can ask the Council to review the suitability of his current accommodation. If the Council considers the accommodation is suitable, Mr X has the right to appeal to County Court. It is appropriate for Mr X to use this route if he remains unhappy with the accommodation and the Council’s review decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman