Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council offering and then withdrawing temporary accommodation and offering unsuitable permanent accommodation to Ms X. The Council offered an appropriate and proportionate remedy for the distress caused. Ms X had the right to seek a review of the suitability of the offer of permanent accommodation and it was reasonable to expect her to use that right.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council:

• Withdrew temporary accommodation after she moved into the property as it had wrongly offered the property to her.
• Refused to refund the cost of broadband which Ms X arranged to be installed in the property as she thought she would be living there for some time.
• Offered unsuitable permanent accommodation to Ms X which does not meet her medical needs.

2. Ms X considers that the errors by the Council caused significant distress to her and her child. Ms X also considers she incurred unnecessary costs and is living in unsuitable accommodation.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

Temporary accommodation

7. The Council placed Ms X and her chid in temporary accommodation. A few days later the Council notified Ms X that it had wrongly offered the property to her so she needed to move out.
8. The Council placed Ms X in alternative temporary accommodation. It then offered permanent accommodation to Ms X.
9. Ms X complained to the Council about it offering and withdrawing the temporary accommodation to her. Ms X said that she arranged for broadband to be installed when she moved to the temporary accommodation as she expected to live there for some time. She continued to pay the costs of the broadband as she was unable to end the contract. Ms X also complained that her permanent accommodation was unsuitable due to her medical needs.
10. The Council acknowledged it was at fault for offering and then withdrawing the temporary accommodation. It offered a payment of £675 for the distress caused to Ms X and the time and trouble caused by a delay in responding to her complaint. This payment is in accordance with our guidance for remedying distress. It is therefore an appropriate and proportionate remedy to acknowledge the distress caused to Ms X and we could not achieve more.
11. The Council refused to reimburse the cost of Ms X’s broadband contract. It is not proportionate to recommend the Council reimburses Ms X for the cost of the contract. Even if the Council had not made the mistake, there are a number of reasons why Ms X may have had to move before the expiry of the contract.

Suitability of Ms X’s permanent accommodation

12. There is a right of review and appeal to the county court on a point of law regarding the suitability of accommodation offered by the Council to end the main housing duty. The Council provided a copy of Ms X’s signed acceptance of her permanent accommodation. This document set out the right to request a review of the suitability of the offer within 21 days. The Council said Ms X did not request a review.
13. When complaining to the Council Ms X said that it was not clear how the Council had considered her medical conditions when offering her the property. But she said she was not complaining about this. I am therefore satisfied that Ms X did not seek a review of the suitability of the permanent accommodation.
14. It is also reasonable to expect Ms X to have sought a review as the Council had clearly explained the review right to her. Ms X’s medication can cause confusion but she was able to make a complaint to the Council and to the Ombudsman. So, I am satisfied she could have requested a review and then appealed to the county court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman