Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council placing Mr X in an unlicensed House of Multiple Occupation or the subsequent matters. This is because there is not enough injustice to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council placed him in an unlicensed House of Multiple Occupation after he presented as homeless. He complained the Council did not provide him with documents he asked for that support its decision to place him in the property, and the Council has since ended its homeless duty to him.
2. Mr X complained CCTV footage was incorrectly shared with the Council by the landlord. He complains the Council presented him with a final warning on behalf of the landlord, and complains about the action taken since he complained to the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X presented to the Council as homeless. The Council assessed Mr X’s circumstances and offered Mr X a room in a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) in May 2023. In October 2023, Mr X complained to the Council the HMO he has been placed in was unlicensed.
7. Mr X asked for documents from the Council to support its decision to house him in the property and later present him with a final warning on behalf of the landlord. Mr X says he has not received these.
8. The Council has admitted it was wrong to not carry out proper checks on the property. It has apologised to Mr X that this happened. Any failure to properly check the HMO licensing has caused limited injustice. Mr X has not raised concerns about the property itself, and despite being offered alternative accommodation, Mr X has decided to stay in the property. The Council has provided an explanation why it acted on the landlord’s behalf and has asked Mr X to submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) for access to the personal information he seeks.
9. I will not investigate this complaint as any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. And, if the Council has failed to provide the information sought through a SAR, Mr X can raise this with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
10. The Council has since ended its main housing duty, offering Mr X the same property on a long term basis as it has since received a temporary HMO license. Mr X has a right of review and appeal against this decision and the suitability of the accommodation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough injustice to warrant our involvement. and the ICO is better placed to consider complaints about his personal information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman