Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a concern about carbon monoxide. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with has led to significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council placed her in interim accommodation which had high carbon monoxide levels and caused her related symptoms. She says the Council dismissed her medical evidence and failed in its duty of care to her. She also complains the Council continued to charge rent while she was concerned about the gas. She wants to the council to rehouse her and reduce or remove the rent arrears.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X raised her concerns with the Council, which investigated and deemed the property safe. The Council has explained to Miss X what steps it took to investigate and how it came to its conclusion that the accommodation did not pose a risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. We are unlikely to find fault with how the Council came to its decision.
7. The Council has accepted there was a date error on a gas safety certificate, which was issued before Miss X moved into the property. The error was discovered after Miss X raised her concerns about carbon monoxide. The Council is clear that, despite the date error, the certificate was current when Miss X was living in the property. Whilst the discovery of the error may have contributed to Miss X’s insecurity about the property, there was no fault in the Council taking the view the error did not affect the property’s safety.
8. Miss X chose not to use the property due to her concerns, even after the Council investigated and deemed the property safe. As the Council was satisfied the property was safe, it had no further obligation to rehouse Miss X, but it did offer her another property anyway. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision to continue charging Miss X rent.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault which has led to significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman