Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s concerns about his housing. This is because the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice caused to Mr X by faults in how it dealt with his housing. An investigation of Mr X’s complaint would not achieve anything more for him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council:

• Failed to take sufficient action to deal with his concerns about safety hazards and a lack of heating in his temporary accommodation.
• Delayed in sending a copy of his licence agreement for his temporary accommodation to him.
• Failed to provide sufficient support with his housing.
• Delayed in dealing with his complaint.

2. Mr X considers that as a result he lived in unsuitable accommodation without heating for longer than necessary. This affected his health and caused significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X made a homelessness application. The Council accepted it had a duty to house Mr X and placed him in temporary accommodation. Mr X requested a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation.
7. Mr X raised concerns with the Council about inadequate heating in the property. He later raised concerns about the safety of a heater which malfunctioned. The Council moved Mr X to alternative temporary accommodation several months after he first raised concerns about the heater.
8. Mr X made complaints about the Council failing to deal with his concerns about the heating, delays in dealing with his request for his temporary accommodation licence agreement and a lack of support.
9. The Council considered Mr X’s complaints through its two stage complaints procedure. It acknowledged the Council was at fault as it:

• Did not take proactive action to deal with Mr X’s safety concerns at the temporary accommodation and it delayed in moving him.
• Delayed in providing his licence agreement.
• Failed to deal with his request for a review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation.

10. The Council also said it had provided support to Mr X with aspects of his housing but it did not always respond to his emails in a timely way.
11. The Council offered a remedy of £2000 to Mr X to acknowledge the distress caused to him by the faults accepted.
12. The Council’s offered remedy is appropriate and proportionate to acknowledge the distress caused to Mr X. It is in line with our guidance on remedies for remedying the distress caused to a person by living in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary. It is also sufficient to acknowledge the distress caused by the failure to provide the licence agreement and any delay in the complaint process.
13. We will not investigate Mr X’s concerns about the suitability of his current accommodation. Mr X has requested a review of the suitability of his accommodation. He can appeal to the county court if the Council finds his property to be suitable and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has appropriately remedied his complaint, and an investigation would not achieve anything more for him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman