Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to re-imburse costs of a carpet in temporary accommodation which it offered to the complainant. Any further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s refusal to pay for a replacement carpet in temporary accommodation which she accepted from it in December 20204. She says the Council sent her a message confirming the landlord would be replacing it but subsequently they refused to do so.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says she was offered temporary accommodation by the Council in 2024 following a previous complaint about the suitability of her former accommodation. She accepted the offer but says the property had a carpet which smelled of animals even though pets were not allowed. She raised this and other repair matters with the Council and it passed these on to the accommodation provider.
6. Miss X later received a message from the Council confirming that the provider had agreed to remove the carpet and once this was completed she would be able to move in. Later she was informed that when the provider visited to check the carpet condition she had already removed it and the flooring underneath. The provider refused to replace the carpet which had been removed without their agreement.
7. Although the provider appears to have agreed with the Council they would replace the carpet, Miss X had no authority to remove it before it could be looked at by the provider. The Council has paid Miss X a discretionary payment of £250 for the difficulties she experienced but will not make a payment to replace the carpet which she removed.
8. Because the carpet was taken away without the evidence being checked we cannot say that there was fault by the Council here. Miss X could have asked for a suitability review under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 but she has not indicated she was not accepting the property. It is unlikely that that the condition of a landlord’s furnishing would be something which would support a review of appeal about suitability of the accommodation itself had Miss X pursued this route.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to re-imburse costs of a carpet in temporary accommodation which it offered to the complainant. Any further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman