Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about emergency accommodation and disrepair in temporary accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because personal injury claims are for the courts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about the emergency accommodation provided by the Council and disrepair in the following temporary accommodation. Ms X wants compensation.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We cannot decide personal injury claims because that is a matter for the courts or insurers.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X became homeless and the Council provided emergency accommodation in a hotel for Ms X and her daughters (aged 17 and 16). The daughters stayed on a different floor to Ms X. They all shared communal kitchen and bathroom facilities.
6. Ms X moved to temporary accommodation. Soon after moving Ms X reported a lack of heating and hot water. Between November 2023 and April 2024 Ms X reported a series of problems which culminated in the Council’s contractors discovering the boiler was dangerous. They immediately capped off the boiler and subsequently fitted a new one.
7. At times Ms X was without hot water and/or heating. She told the Council she had had blood tests which showed carbon monoxide in her blood. The Council offered alternative accommodation which was declined by Ms X. Ms X says she was ill and could not move.
8. Ms X complained her daughters were put at risk because the Council put them in on a different floor in the hotel; there were men in other rooms. The Council explained that when Ms X was evicted there were only two rooms available and that the facilities, while shared, were private when in use. The Council said the arrangement was suitable given the age of her daughters.
9. Ms X also complained about the condition of the temporary accommodation. She said the Council had put them all at risk by not checking safety issues in advance.
10. The Council explained the action its contractor had taken to resolve the boiler issues. It said it obtained safety certificates in August before Ms X moved in during October. It later transpired there were serious issues with the heating system and the Council reported the engineer (not from the Council) who did the checks to the regulatory body. The Council was not aware of any issues until Ms X reported them. The Council apologised though for all the disruption.
11. The Council invited Ms X to provide evidence of the carbon monoxide poisoning so she could make a claim; the Council says Ms X has not provided the evidence.
12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The hotel accommodation may not have been ideal but, in the context of the family being homeless, and there being nothing else available, this does not amount to fault requiting an investigation.
13. Ms X had a very difficult time before the boiler was replaced. However, while not disputing how hard it must have been, there is nothing to suggest this was caused by Council fault. It checked that the safety certificates were in place and it was entitled to rely on the findings of the engineer who issued the certificate. It transpired the system was not satisfactory but the Council was unaware of this until the seriousness of the situation was identified by its contractors. The chronology shows the Council, through its contractor, responded promptly to each report. It also offered alternative accommodation and provided portable heaters. I acknowledge the process to resolve the issues was not straightforward, but this was caused by the problems with the heating system rather than Council fault.
14. Ms X says blood tests show she was poisoned by carbon monoxide. The Council responded appropriately by inviting Ms X to provide evidence and make a claim. If Ms X wants to pursue this she will need to make an insurance claim or go to court. We cannot assess personal injury claims.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman