Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation provided by the Council. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable temporary accommodation that met her medical needs during pregnancy and the safety needs of her children. She says the Council did not properly consider her disability and advised inappropriate arrangements, which caused distress, anxiety and concern for her children's welfare. She seeks suitable accommodation that meets her family's needs.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X approached the Council for housing assistance. The Council accepted the duty to provide temporary accommodation and placed Ms X and her children in accommodation with shared toilet facilities.
7. Ms X told the Council she has a medical condition and disability and said the accommodation was unsuitable for her needs. The Council obtained and considered medical evidence and sought advice from medical assessors. It considered whether reasonable adjustments were required and whether alternative accommodation was available.
8. The Council explained that accommodation with a private toilet was not available at the time. It said the placement was temporary and set out the steps it had taken to consider Ms X’s circumstances and mitigate the impact of the accommodation arrangements. Ms X complained to the Council, which responded at Stage 1 and Stage 2 of its complaints process.

My assessment

9. All accommodation the Council provides to homeless people must be suitable. What is necessary for accommodation to be suitable is specific to the individual circumstances and is a matter of fact for the Council to decide.
10. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was the correct one, but whether there was fault in the way it reached that decision.
11. The evidence shows the Council:
• obtained and considered medical information,
• sought professional advice,
• considered Ms X’s disability and needs, and
• explained why the accommodation was suitable.
12. The Council also explained the temporary nature of the accommodation and the factors it considered when deciding what accommodation it could provide. There is no evidence the Council ignored relevant information or failed to follow the correct process.
13. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman