Summary: We will not investigate Mx W’s complaint about the Council’s handling of their housing case after receiving a notice to quite from their landlord. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mx W complains about the Council’s handling of their housing case after receiving a notice to quit from their landlord. They complain the Council failed to respond to their communications and failed to support them to remain in the property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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. Mx W was moved to temporary accommodation in February 2023. The Council had a contractual relationship with the property’s managing agent to provide the accommodation, not the landlord.
7. In September 2023, Mx W received a message from their landlord noting he wanted to change the managing agents and that if this wasn’t possible, he would need to evict all tenants. Mx W contacted the Council in September for advice on the situation.
8. In October 2023, Mx W was contacted by an officer who asked for evidence, which was provided. Mx W says there was no further contact from the Council. Mx W continued to chase the Council for a response and support with their situation.
9. In March 2024, Mx W received a notice to quit from their landlord to end the rental contract. Mx W told the Council this. Also in March 2024, an occupational therapist (OT) assessed Mx W’s property and noted it was not suitable on medical grounds. A report was sent to the Council’s housing service.
10. In response to Mx W’s complaint, the Council acknowledged there had been fault with its communication with Mx W and that this will have caused distress and frustration due to the uncertainty of their situation.
11. The Council explained when it received the OT report, it prioritised moving Mx W to more suitable accommodation. The Council nominated Mx W for a 2 bedroom, fully accessible flat and the tenancy started in June 2024.
12. The Council acknowledged the stress and cost of Mx W going through the eviction process, as well as the uncertainty and stress caused by the threat of homelessness when they received the notice to quit.
13. The Council offered the following remedy to recognise the injustice caused:
• £200 to recognise the injustice caused by the delays in its complaint handling.
• £300 to recognise the distress and frustration caused by its poor communication.
• Reimbursement of the costs incurred in moving to the new home. The Council asked Mx W to provide an invoice or receipts to enable this.
14. Mx W complaint about being placed in unsuitable properties since 2021 is late. This is because it was reasonable for them to have complained to us about the matter earlier. I have not seen any good reasons for why they were unable to complain to us sooner. Therefore, there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.
15. With regards to the Council’s handling of the matter, an investigation is not justified because it would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. In this case, the Council has already accepted its communication with Mx W was not of the standard expected during the period where Mx W was at threat of homelessness and recognise the distress and uncertainty this caused them.
16. It is acknowledged Mx W’s preference was to remain in their temporary accommodation and for adaptions to be completed. However, where a council has accepted the main housing duty, their aim would always be to move individuals into suitable permanent accommodation where possible, rather than keep them in temporary accommodation. This would then enable the Council to discharge their housing duty.
17. In this case, the Council said it attempted to liaise with the new property managing agents to keep Mx W in the property, but it received no response. Subsequently, the Council found suitable accommodation, which it offered to Mx W as permanent accommodation. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault with the Council’s actions to move Mx W rather than keep them in the temporary accommodation.
18. An investigation is also not justified as the Council has offered Mx W a suitable remedy to recognise the injustice caused by the faults accepted. The Council’s offer is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and I am satisfied an investigation would not lead to any further recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mx W’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman