Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council evicting Ms X from interim accommodation and the loss of her belongings. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation. Ms X could go to the county court about the loss of her belongings, and it is reasonable to expect her to do so.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council:

• Wrongly evicted her and her children from interim accommodation.
• Failed to protect her belongings.

Ms X says that as a result she and her children were left homeless and she has lost valuable possessions and suffered fraud.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Ms X.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Some years ago, Council A placed Ms X in temporary accommodation in the Council’s area. The owner of the temporary accommodation evicted Ms X and her children so she approached the Council for assistance and accommodation.
7. The Council placed Ms X and her children in interim accommodation. The Council then notified Ms X that she and her children had to leave the accommodation as Council A accepted it had a continuing duty to accommodate Ms X.
8. Ms X said the Council told her to leave the accommodation immediately. The Council then allowed Ms X to stay a further week. Ms X did not leave. Approximately three weeks later, the owner of the accommodation changed the locks and removed Ms X’s belongings to storage.
9. Ms X said the actions of the Council left her and her children homeless as Council A did not immediately provide accommodation. She also considers the Council’s actions caused her to lose belongings and suffer fraud as her valuables went missing in storage.
10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council evicting her from interim accommodation. Council A accepted the continuing duty to accommodate Ms X. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to end its duty to provide interim accommodation to Ms X.
11. The Council extended Ms X’s stay in the accommodation by a week after it asked her to leave. But even if this was not sufficient notice, there is insufficient evidence of injustice to justify an investigation into Ms X’s complaint. This is because Ms X stayed in the property for a further three weeks so she had time to arrange her move.
12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the loss of her valuables while her property was in storage. Ms X could make a claim for their loss or damage to the county court. The court would be better placed to decide the responsibility for the loss of belongings and value. We therefore consider it is reasonable for Ms X to go to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman