Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to his homeless and housing case. This is because the alleged faults have not caused significant injustice. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider his complaint and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to ask the Council to complete a review.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s actions in relation to his homeless and housing case. He complains:
• His temporary accommodation is highly unsuitable.
• The Council allowed his booking at his temporary accommodation lapse.
• The Council offered to relocate him to a different hotel even though it was previously assessed as highly unsuitable.
• The Council has withheld information from him despite being entitled to it under data protection legislation.
• The Council has placed his housing register account in the wrong priority band

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 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, 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. Mr X has previously complained to us about the suitability of his temporary accommodation. We considered his complained and decided we would not investigate as it was unlikely we would find fault with the Council’s actions. We also noted it was reasonable for Mr X to request a suitability review and then to appeal to the county court if he disagreed. As we have previously considered a complaint about this matter, we will not reconsider the matter.
6. The Council was accommodating Mr X in a hotel. The Council confirmed that extensions to bookings are done manually through an online booking system. The Council said that it had extended Mr X’s booking at the hotel prior to the checkout time. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. I am also satisfied that the alleged fault has not caused significant injustice to warrant an investigation because Mr X was never asked to leave the room.
7. Mr X said the Council offered to move him to another hotel which was also unsuitable. However, there is no evidence Mr X accepted this offer. Therefore, an investigation is not justified because no significant injustice was caused to Mr X.
8. Mr X complains the Council failed to respond to his requests for information under data protection legislation. This complaint is best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office as they deal with complaints about data handling and failure to comply with data protection legislation.
9. Finally, Mr X says his housing application is in the wrong priority band. The Council confirmed that Mr X is in a direct offer band. Under its allocations policy, this means the Council can make a direct offer to an applicant outside of the band and date order criteria.
10. If Mr X is unhappy with his priority band and considers he should be in another band, he can ask the Council to complete a review. I cannot see Mr X has done this and it is reasonable to expect him to follow this process.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the alleged faults have not caused significant injustice. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider his complaint and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to ask the Council to complete a review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman