The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with problems the complainant reported with his temporary accommodation. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or that the outcome for the complainant would be different if we now investigated his complaint.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr B, has complained about the way the Council dealt with problems he reported with his temporary accommodation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant, his complaints to the Council and the Council’s responses.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Mr B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
My assessment
In December 2021 Mr B complained to the Council about the way it and the temporary accommodation managing agent had dealt with his initial reports of a water leak and then his report of a further severe leak.
In its final response to this complaint the Council said it should have carried out further investigations with the managing agent to check if the repairs needed were completed and if so, if Mr B was satisfied with the repairs. When Mr B reported the severe leak, the Council said its out of hours service was not to the standard it expected. The Council told Mr B it is reviewing its out of hours procedures and staff training would take place. It provided alternative temporary accommodation. The Council apologised to Mr B for the distress the situation caused him and his family and for the failure of the out of hours service to provide the help he needed.
After he moved to the alternative temporary accommodation, Mr B reported problems with the card key and frequent sounding of the fire alarm. The Council said its handling of Mr B’s second call was not to the standard it expected. It apologised to Mr B for the poor level of communication and its call handling manner. The Council said the manager of the service would address the matter with the operative involved. The Council also agreed a housing officer had not provided an acceptable service when dealing with a call from Mr B. The Council apologised for the officer’s mishandling of the call and the difficulties Mr B then faced in getting the problems resolved. The Council told Mr B it was carrying out an in-depth investigation but it could not disclose the outcome of any potential disciplinary action to him.
Mr B told us to put things right he wanted the Council to revise its system and investigate the matters seriously without any cover up. The Council’s replies to Mr B’s complaints shows it has taken them seriously. It has acknowledged service failings, agreed to review its out of hours procedures, to arrange training and to take up the issues with the individuals involved. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or that the outcome for Mr B would be different if we now investigated his complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or that the outcome for Mr B would be different if we now investigated his complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman