Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council entering his property without prior permission. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council entered his room without permission, violating his privacy. He said some of his personal belongings were stolen, prompting him to report the incident to the police.
2. He said the Council failed to fairly consider his account of events and said that due to him formally complaining about the incident, he was asked to leave the accommodation, becoming homeless.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 contacted the Council in October 2023 presenting himself as homeless. The Council accepted its main housing duty and offered Mr X temporary accommodation which he refused. This led the Council to end its main housing duty as Mr X refused an offer of temporary accommodation. The Council informed him of its decision in January 2024 and of his review rights within 21 days if he disagreed with the Council’s decision. This matter is part of a decision we previously issued and we will not look at this again.
7. In October 2024, despite the Council no longer owing Mr X a housing duty it offered him another supported living accommodation. Upon signing his tenancy agreement, Mr X insisted on adding a condition stating no one was permitted to enter his room without his presence.
8. A few weeks later, he reported a water leak in his bathroom to the Council. The next day, the Council entered his room without his presence to allow a plumber to carry out remedial work. Mr X said he perceived this event as an invasion of his privacy and also reported the theft of some of his belongings to the Council.
9. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council stated that, as a social housing landlord, it has the power to enter the property in emergency situations. It deemed Mr X’s report of a water leak as an emergency situation as the water leak could have caused damage to the fabric of the building and needed investigating. The Council further said the plumber was not left unsupervised in Mr X’s room while on site. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, as there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council decided it needed to enter Mr X’s room to justify investigating.
10. Mr X said his complaints to the Council about this matter resulted in him becoming homeless. Although the Council ended its main housing duty to Mr X in January 2024, it continued to make discretionary offers of temporary accommodation throughout the year. Towards the end of 2024, Mr X faced eviction from his most recent accommodation. The Council chose not to make a further discretionary offer of temporary housing, which it was entitled to do, as it no longer owed Mr X a housing duty. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman