Summary: Ms A complained about the Council’s decision to house another tenant in her social housing building. She said the Council had not carried out an appropriate risk assessment which caused significant distress to her and her child. We did not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Ms A complains the Council did not carry out an appropriate risk assessment before placing an unsuitable tenant (X) next door to her temporary accommodation. Ms A says she and her small child lived in fear of the neighbour’s erratic behaviour for ten months before he was evicted.
2. At the time of her complaint, Ms A was seeking an offer of secure accommodation for her and her child. The Council has since provided this.

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. 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)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered information provided by the Council and Ms A, alongside the relevant law and guidance.
6. Ms A and the Council have had a chance to comment on this draft decision before a final decision was made, and the comments made have been taken into consideration.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Ms A and her young child were placed in social housing specifically for families and vulnerable people. Following an incident at that property, the Council moved Ms A to another property, which is not reserved for any particular group.
8. In Spring 2023, the Council moved X into the building. X was a rough sleeper with substance related issues and posed a potential risk.
9. The Council completed a risk assessment form which identified X as a low risk.
10. The Council held a multi-agency meeting with representatives from the probation service, the Police, X’s drug and alcohol support group, the housing officer, the council’s rough sleeping navigators, the anti-social behaviour and safeguarding officer, and a temporary housing manager to consider the risk X posed. It was decided that X could be placed in the building as long as there were robust measures in place to mitigate the potential impact on other tenants.
11. Days after X moved into the building, Ms A complained to the Council about X’s anti-social behaviour.
12. Over the following three days, the Council contacted the police, carried out a home visit to speak to X about his behaviour, and had an acceptable behaviour meeting with him. The Council told X he should not have any visitors at the property and had him sign an acceptable behaviour agreement.
13. Again, within days, Ms A complained to the Council that X was making so much noise at night she and her child were unable to sleep. The Council issued a written warning to X the same day.
14. Over the following three weeks, Ms A continued to complain of the significant impact X’s anti-social behaviour was having on her and on her child. She also called the Police out to help.
15. During this time, the Council liaised with the parties who were at the multi-agency meeting including the Police, met with X and warned him he may be evicted if his behaviour did not change and then issued a Community Protection Warning when it did not improve.
16. The Council held a further multi agency meeting to discuss how the placement was going and together they decided to allow X four weeks to improve, after which the Council would issue a Notice to Quit.
17. Over the following four weeks, the issues continued. The Council was in close contact with X’s drug and alcohol support providers, with the Police and the anti-social behaviour team as well as Ms A during this time.
18. X did not attend a planned meeting with the Council at the end of the four week period, and said he was no longer staying at the property.
19. The Council carried out a home visit, but X was not there.
20. A further multi agency meeting was held, and the parties agreed that X’s rough sleeper coordinator would arrange to meet with X to see if he would surrender the tenancy.
21. As X did not attend the meeting or make contact over the following week, the Council served Notice to Quit and the legal process to evict X began.
22. Over the following months, Ms A reported further instances of anti-social behaviour. The Council continued to deal with these reports and carried out home visits and liaised with the Police about X’s behaviour.
23. The Council offered to move Ms A and her child to alternative temporary housing in its family hostels over the following months. It also offered to provide her with keys to another property in case she wished to go there for temporary respite. Ms A chose not to do this as she awaited X’s eviction.
24. Seven months after X had moved into the property, a Possession Order was granted by the Court. At the same time, the Council made an offer of what it considered to be suitable private rented accommodation to Ms A.

Analysis and findings

25. As explained in paragraph four of this decision our role is not to ask whether the Council could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
26. The Council has a policy whereby it will try to support and accommodate any rough sleepers within its area. It works with local police and other organisations to support those individuals.
27. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the risks in placing X as it did, and the information it took account of when deciding this. There is no fault in how the Council took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
28. The Council has carried out an appropriate risk assessment, identified that there were risks, considered the options available to it and implemented measures to try to mitigate the risk. It has also taken quick action once the issues arose. Although the eviction took a number of months, the Council is not at fault for the time taken by the courts.
29. In making its decision, the Council has shown it considered its responsibilities to both X and Ms A. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it. I do not therefore consider the Council to be at fault here.

Back to top

Final decision

30. We find the Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman