Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council supported him with his housing. This is because any fault has not caused injustice to Mr X and because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to help his family to find suitable accommodation;
2. delayed reporting his landlord for operating an unlicenced House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO); and
3. failed to communicate with him in his first language, which is not English.
2. As a result Mr X said he and his family have been living for too long in an overcrowded, unsuitable property. Mr X wants to be moved to suitable alternative accommodation.

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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. When Mr X approached the Council as homeless, the Council nominated Mr X for several properties that met his affordability criteria but he declined these as he said he would only accept properties in the borough.
7. Mr X’s landlord began eviction proceedings under section 21 of the Housing Act and Mr X told the Council about this. In response, the Council said he and his family did not qualify for interim accommodation.
8. Regardless of whether the Council failed to provide Mr X with interim accommodation when it should have following the section 21 notice, Mr X had already been offered alternative properties which he refused. If he accepted one of the properties, this would have either resolved his homelessness, or he could have used his right to request a suitability review and his subsequent appeal right to a county court. There is not enough evidence of injustice caused directly by Council fault and so we should not investigate this further.
9. Regarding Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to always provide an interpreter, the Council apologised and said it had raised this with the relevant officer. There is no more worthwhile outcome achievable if we were to investigate this complaint further.
10. Mr X also complained the Council delayed reporting his landlord to its licensing team for operating an unlicensed HMO. The Council apologised for its two-month delay in doing this and said the licensing team were now actively investigating. There is no more worthwhile outcome achievable if we investigated this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice caused by fault and because there is no more worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman