Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end the interim accommodation duty. Any fault by the Council will not have caused enough injustice to Mr X to justify an investigation into his complaint. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council ending the relief duty as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have requested a review of the decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council:

• Offered unsuitable interim accommodation which did not meet his medical needs.
• Failed to inform him that it would end the interim accommodation duty if he did not accept the interim accommodation offered.
• Wrongly labelled him as aggressive and failed to provide specific examples of his alleged behaviour.
• Wrongly ended the relief duty.

2. Mr X says that as a result he had to move into unsuitable shared accommodation which severely affected his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs Y on behalf of Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X made a homelessness application. The Council accepted the relief duty and the duty to provide interim accommodation. It placed Mr X in bed and breakfast accommodation. It then offered alternative interim accommodation. Mr X viewed the interim accommodation but refused it. Mr X considered the accommodation did not meet his medical needs.
7. The Council ended its duty to provide interim accommodation to Mr X as it considered he had refused a suitable offer. It also considered Mr X had been aggressive towards an officer when viewing the interim accommodation. The Council continued to accommodate Mr X in the bed and breakfast accommodation.
8. Mr X accepted an offer of accommodation. The Council ended the relief duty as it considered Mr X had accepted suitable accommodation which would be available to him for six months or more.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the suitability of the offer of interim accommodation and the Council not informing him of the consequences of refusing the offer. We are mindful that any fault in how the Council decided the accommodation was suitable or in its communication will have caused some distress to Mr X. But the Council continued to accommodate Mr X following his refusal of the offer. So, any fault will not have caused significant enough injustice to justify an investigation of the complaint.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council considering he behaved aggressively towards an officer. An investigation would not be able to establish what happened at the viewing and whether the Council’s position was correct. There is also insufficient injustice caused by the Council’s position that he behaved aggressively as the Council continued to accommodate Mr X.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the suitability of the accommodation offered to end the relief duty. Mr X had the right to request a review of the Council’s decision to end the relief duty on the grounds that the accommodation offered was not suitable. The Council notified Mr X of his right to seek a review in its letter ending the relief duty. Ms Y was assisting Mr X at that time. So, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have requested a review of the Council’s decision to end the relief duty. Mr X would also have had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law in the event the Council did not change its decision after considering a review request.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as there is insufficient injustice to justify an investigation. It is also reasonable to expect Mr X to have requested a review of the Council’s decision to end the relief duty.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman