Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council handled her tenancy when her landlord gave her notice. There is not enough evidence of significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to support her when she was told by the Management Agency acting on its behalf that she had to leave her temporary accommodation.
2. She says that as a result she was caused significant distress.
3. She wants the Council to make service improvements, apologise and pay her compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X and her family was in temporary accommodation. This was managed by an Agency on behalf of the Council.
8. In October 2024, the landlord issued Ms X with a Notice to Quit the property. Ms X informed the Council and asked for help and support.
9. The Council informed Ms X it would rehouse her before she had to leave her temporary accommodation. It did so and Ms X moved into permanent accommodation.
10. In its complaints responses, the Council said its communications could have been better with Ms X. It said the Agency should have informed the Council when it became aware the landlord wanted to take their property back. It said it has put improvements in place to prevent this happening again.
11. The Council said the Agency failed to keep her informed of what was happening. The Council also found both itself and the Agency did not always respond promptly to Ms X’s communications. It apologised for not offering her assurances quickly enough.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. The decision to take back the property was the landlord’s and not the Council’s. Therefore, the distress caused to Ms X over leaving the property was not because of actions by the Council.
13. Ms X was rehoused in permanent accommodation before she had to leave the property. We could achieve nothing more in relation to her housing situation. It is noted Ms X was caused additional distress and frustration due to a certain level of poor communication, but any remaining injustice caused by this is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of remaining significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman