Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of Ms X’s temporary accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation into Ms X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council wrongly considered that her temporary accommodation to be suitable for her and her children despite it having ventilation and mould problems. Ms X says that as a result she and her children are living in unsuitable accommodation which is causing distress to them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X made a homelessness application. The Council accepted the main housing duty for Ms X. It notified her that her interim accommodation was now her temporary accommodation. Ms X requested a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation. The Council considered Ms X’s review request but decided the temporary accommodation was suitable for her and her children’s needs.
7. Ms X had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law against the Council’s review decision. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but she did not raise any points of law. So, we do not consider it is reasonable to expect Ms X to have appealed to the county court.
8. We are not a right of appeal and we will not come to our own view on the suitability of Ms X’s temporary accommodation. Our role is to consider if there was any fault in how the Council reached its decision.
9. The Council’s review decision letter shows it considered the evidence provided by Ms X, including her medical evidence. It addressed Ms X’s reasons for considering the temporary accommodation to be unsuitable. The Council provided a reasoned explanation for why it considered the temporary accommodation to be suitable. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into Ms X’s complaint.
10. Councils should deal with review requests within eight weeks. The Council took an additional four months to issue its final decision. The time taken may have caused some uncertainty to Ms X. But this is not significant enough injustice to justify an investigation of Ms X’s complaint. It is also not proportionate to investigate this aspect of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman