Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council evicting Mrs X and Ms Y from temporary accommodation as there is insufficient injustice to justify an investigation. We also will not investigate Mrs X and Ms Y’s complaint about the suitability of their temporary accommodation as they had the right to appeal to the county court.

The complaint

1. Mrs X and Ms Y complained that the Council:

• Followed incorrect procedures and breached the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 when evicting them from temporary accommodation.
• Placed them in unsuitable temporary accommodation which does not meet their access needs and is not affordable.
• Failed to provide their full housing file in response to a subject access request and did not provide their occupational therapy assessment report.

2. Mrs X and Ms Y consider the Council’s actions have caused significant distress and placed their family at risk of harm due to living in unsuitable temporary 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, it is reasonable to ask the council for a review or appeal or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs X, Ms Y and their family lived in temporary accommodation. Members of their family have disabilities and complex health needs. The Council told Mrs X that the owner of the temporary accommodation wanted it back, so they had to move within a short period of time. The Council offered emergency accommodation which Mrs X refused as it was unsuitable for the family’s medical needs. The Council then offered alternative temporary accommodation which Mrs X, Ms Y and their family moved to.
9. We will not investigate Mrs X and Ms Y’s complaint that the Council did not follow proper procedure when evicting them from the temporary accommodation. The landlord allowed Mrs X, Ms Y and their family to remain in the property until the Council found alternative temporary accommodation. They did not move into emergency accommodation. So, any fault by the Council in the eviction process will not have caused significant enough injustice to justify an investigation.
10. Mrs X’s solicitor asked the Council to review the suitability of the alternative temporary accommodation. The Council responded by providing more information and told the solicitor they could still ask for a review of the suitability. The Council said the solicitor did not contact it again. Ms Y said the Council did not respond to the solicitor’s review request.
11. There is a conflict of evidence about whether the Council responded to Mrs X’s review request. But we will not investigate this complaint as Mrs X had the right to appeal to the county court if the Council did not respond to her review request within eight weeks. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to appeal as she had a solicitor acting on her behalf.
12. Mrs X and Ms Y are unhappy with how the Council dealt with their subject access request for their housing file and their request for their occupational health report. We will not investigate this complaint as the Information Commissioner is best placed to consider this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman