Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about suitability of temporary accommodation provided by the Council because Mrs Y could have appealed to the County Court and it is reasonable to have expected her to do this. Mrs Y has not suffered significant personal injustice because of the Council’s delays responding to her request for a suitability review.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about the suitability of temporary accommodation she lives in. she says the property is in disrepair, causing serious health and safety issues.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council offered Mrs Y temporary accommodation in line with its homelessness duty it had to her (Section 193(2) Housing Act 1996 as amended).
8. Mrs Y accepted the accommodation but requested a suitability review shortly after occupying the property. She had a right to do this. Mrs Y told the Council that the property was unsuitable because of her circumstances. She also said the property was in disrepair.
9. The Council concluded that the temporary accommodation was suitable. There is evidence that it considered Mrs Y’s circumstances, and it investigated the disrepairs that Mrs Y reported. Mrs Y could have appealed this decision to the County Court if she disagreed with it and it is reasonable to have expected her to do this. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
10. The Council should have provided a review decision within eight weeks of Mrs Y requesting one. There were significant delays in the Council providing a review decision, and it took 32 weeks to do this. This is fault. However, I do not consider Mrs Y suffering significant personal injustice because of this delay to warrant investigating this further. The Council’s actions did result in Mrs Y having her appeal right delayed, but she did not use this appeal right once she received the Council’s review decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because she could have appealed to the County Court and it is reasonable to have expected her to do this. Mrs Y has not suffered significant injustice because of the delay responding to her request for a suitability review.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman