Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to assist her in moving to alternative temporary accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice caused by fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide safe accommodation for her and her young child. She also complained that the Council mishandled moving her belongings and made errors when doing so.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X complained to the Council about an isolated pest incident at her temporary accommodation. The Council promptly arranged for a pest control contractor to attend the property to resolve the issue. Despite a subsequent report deeming the accommodation to suitable, Ms X did not feel comfortable returning to the property. Subsequently, the Council arranged alternative temporary accommodation for her. From the information provided, I am satisfied that the Council acted promptly in securing alternative suitable accommodation. I do not find fault.
6. There was no duty to provide alternative accommodation and normally repairs and pest control would be dealt with in the same way by the landlord as those experienced by social housing tenants.
7. After Ms X accepted an offer for alternative accommodation, the Council agreed to assist Ms X with her transfer by arranging and paying for a removal company. The Council made an administrative error which led to a delay in Ms X’s belongings being transferred to her new accommodation. I note that this delay lasted for 1 day. The Council have admitted to this error and agreed to learn from this mistake (and communicate such learnings to its relevant teams). I note that by arranging removal assistance for Ms X, the Council went beyond its duties owed to Ms X.
8. If Ms X had not been offered alternative accommodation and believed the accommodation was no longer suitable she had a right to ask for a review of suitability under the provisions of the Housing Act 1996 part 7. This would carry further appeal rights to the court.
9. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
10. I do not consider there is sufficient injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is sufficient evidence of fault causing significant injustice for any worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman