Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about disrepair of temporary accommodation because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about disrepair in her temporary accommodation. She says the Council failed to act promptly in response to her concerns.
2. Ms Y says her current accommodation feels unsafe and wants the Council to move her to 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms Y reported a water leak in her bathroom. Her landlord sent an engineer out to fix this issue, but the leak continued. Ms Y complained to the Council. The Council found that the landlord failed to remove panels when investigating the leak, which resulted in the leak continuing. It apologised and upheld her complaint. It said it will request all landlords to remove panelling when investigating faults to ensure leaks are detected at the earliest opportunity. We could add nothing further to the Council’s response, therefore will not investigate this part of the complaint.
9. The Council completed a property inspection, and confirmed all internal repairs were completed. It said some external repairs were outstanding, but contractors were unable to complete these due to the harsh winter conditions. A temporary fix was completed, however, until a permanent fix could be done. Ms Y says the Council failed to act promptly to her concerns. From the evidence I have seen, the Council responded timely and completed its own inspection. It liaised with the landlord to ensure repairs were completed and to ensure identified hazards were addressed within the statutory timeframe.
10. Ms Y says the Council should move her to alternative temporary accommodation. The Council has explained her current accommodation is considered suitable. It explained to Ms Y the process for requesting a transfer but advised the location could be anywhere within its locality. It was honest about the current lack of social housing stock, explaining Ms Y would likely be waiting several more years for a permanent property.
11. I understand Ms Y is unhappy with her current accommodation. She says she is often reporting issues. The Council acknowledges this but says her landlord has always been proactive in completing repair work as evidenced by its records. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. The Council properly considered Ms Y’s concerns and responded to these. It considers the property as suitable, and has provided Ms Y with advice on relevant matters. We will therefore not investigate this complaint.
12. If Ms Y believed her accommodation was unsuitable when she initially moved into the property, she had a right to request a section 202 (Housing Act 1996) suitability review. If she disagreed with the Council’s outcome of this review, she would have had further appeal rights to Court.
13. Councils have a duty to keep the suitability of temporary accommodation under review. An applicant may ask a council to reconsider the suitability of their current temporary accommodation if their circumstances change. The council should then make a new suitability decision. (R(B) v Redbridge LBC [2019] EWHC 250 (Admin)).
14. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether somebody disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman