Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council evicting Mr X from interim accommodation and ending the relief duty as Mr X has exercised his right to seek a review of the decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into Mr X’s complaint about the Council reporting him to the Police.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council:

• Unfairly evicted Mr X from his interim accommodation and ended the relief duty as it wrongly considered it had made a suitable offer of accommodation to him.
• Reported him to the Police as it wrongly considered comments he made amounted to racial abuse.

Mr X says that the Council’s actions have caused significant distress to him.

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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X lived in interim accommodation provided by the Council as it had accepted the relief duty and had reason to believe he was in priority need.
7. The Council made a final offer of permanent accommodation to Mr X. He refused the offer as he considered the property was in an unsafe condition and unsuitable for his needs. The Council ended its relief duty as its offer was suitable. It also asked Mr X to leave the interim accommodation. Mr X then told the Council he would accept the offer. The Council did not reoffer the property as it had been allocated to someone else.
8. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision to end the relief duty as he considered the final offer of accommodation to be unsuitable. The review concluded that the Council should reinstate the relief duty to Mr X.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the suitability of the final offer made by the Council and its decision to end the relief duty. This matter has been considered through the statutory review process which reinstated the relief duty. It is therefore not proportionate to investigate the complaint, and we could not achieve more for Mr X.
10. Mr X also complained about the Council’s decision to call the Police following an incident at its offices. Mr X considers the Council wrongly accused him of racial abuse. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council was entitled to take action to support the welfare of its staff. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint also indicates the Police charged Mr X following the incident. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating this aspect of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council evicting Mr X from interim accommodation and ending the relief duty as Mr X has exercised his right to seek a review of the decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into Mr X’s complaint about the Council reporting him to the Police.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman