Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s response to issues she raised about her housing. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because a number of the issues relate to events which happened too long ago to be investigated now and there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation of more recent issues.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council has failed to properly address the housing issues she raised about accommodation she occupied from 2017 until recently. She says it did not properly investigate her concerns or take them seriously and that it gave misleading information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms X and the Council, including its responses to the complaint. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In May 2017 the Council Ms X moved into a studio flat which had been found for her as temporary accommodation. Shortly after moving in Ms X gave birth.
6. In mid-February 2020 Council officers visited Ms X and decided the property was no longer suitable for her and her child’s needs and that they should be moved to alternative accommodation.
7. A week later, Ms X wrote to the Council to complain that the property she had been living in was no longer suitable for her and her child. She referred to various problems she had encountered in 2018, that she had for a long time been trying to find out who her landlord was and she raised concerns about a number of ongoing and more recent issues, including a water leak in February 2020, a faulty door handle, low ceilings and the lack of proper ventilation. She also asked about access to the roof top and complained about rubbish on it and the closeness of an extractor fan from the restaurant below.
8. The Council responded to Ms X under the two stages of its complaints procedure, setting out the action taken in response to the concerns she had raised and confirming that she had a sub-licence agreement and that the Council was her landlord. It apologised it had not made this clear to her when she had asked.
9. In between the first and second stage responses, Ms X and her child moved into their new accommodation.
10. Dissatisfied with the Council’s responses to her complaint, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

11. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to the parts of Ms X’s complaint which concern problems from the past which arose during her earlier occupation of her flat and I see no grounds which warrant exercising discretion to investigate them now.
12. I note that Ms X disputes some of what the Council has said, particularly in relation to action taken to address the February 2020 leaks, but it appears the issue was resolved within a reasonable time frame and I see no useful outcome would be achieved in investigating these matters now.
13. The Council apologised for its delay in clarifying it was Ms X’s landlord. It told her which matters she could report to Hackney Council’s Environmental Health service because Ms X’s flat was located in Hackney’s area. Ms X says land registry records show the roof top forms part of the property she occupied. While this may have been the case, we do not know if it was part of the agreement when the property was taken on by the Council.
14. Ms X has queried the timing of her move to alternative accommodation and says she wants us to investigate whether a particular Council officer has any connections to private properties in which homeless tenants are housed or if they have favoured their family members in allocating properties. However, Ms X has provided no evidence to support such allegations and we will not investigate them.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because a number of the issues relate to events which happened too long ago to be investigated now and there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation of more recent issues.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman