The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council providing her with unsuitable interim accommodation and the service she received from the Council. This is because there is nothing further we could add to the previous investigation by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
Ms B complains the Council put her in unsuitable interim accommodation which has mentally impacted her, and caused her son to develop a medical condition. She wants settled accommodation, compensation and paid therapy. She also complains about the service received from the Council when she spoke with staff members.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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) 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: 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 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)) We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s complaint responses.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council placed Ms B in interim accommodation in September 2022 after she and her children became homeless. A third-party accommodation provider provided the Council with the property. As the provider acted on the Council’s behalf under the Council’s homelessness duties, we consider the Council ultimately responsible for the provider’s acts or omissions. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7)) Ms B says she raised concerns about the property many times to the Council due to it having one bedroom less than it should have, and damp and mould issues. The Council insisted the property had the correct number of bedrooms, and got confirmation of this from the provider. The Council did not visit the property to check the suitability or investigate Ms B’s claims. The provider contacted the Council in December 2022 and confirmed that it had mistakenly provided the wrong property, and it did in fact have one fewer bedroom. Following this, the Council apologised to Ms B and placed her in temporary accommodation in a larger property, outside the Council’s area, in January 2023.
Ms B did not complain to us until March 2024. Therefore the restriction in paragraph 3 above applies. In this case, I cannot see any good reason Ms B could not reasonably have complained about the Council’s actions earlier.
And even if there was a good reason Ms B had not complained sooner, I still do not consider an investigation would achieve anything further. I am satisfied with the action the Council has taken in response to the complaint. The Council has addressed Ms B’s complaint through its complaints procedure, and it has recognised there is fault and that it should have visited the property. The payment the Council offered is in line with what the Ombudsman would normally recommend for a family spending such a period in unsuitable accommodation.
If Ms B thinks she is entitled to compensation, or believes her son’s medical condition is the result of failures by the Council, it would be reasonable for her to make a claim against the Council at court. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to award compensation, and we cannot decide whether the Council is liable for Ms B’s son’s medical condition.
Ms B complains the Council has still not moved her to settled accommodation and it is inconvenient for her to be living outside the Council’s area. The Council explained to Ms B it is unable to provide settled accommodation due to the shortage of properties in the area and the high demand. It said it cannot prioritise her housing need over other people with the same need, who have been waiting for a longer time. The Council identified other temporary accommodation properties for Ms B in its area, but she has declined them. We cannot achieve significantly more here. If Ms B considers her current temporary accommodation unsuitable, she can ask the Council to review its suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) It would be reasonable for her to use that right, so we shall not decide this point.
Ms B complains about the service she received from the Council when it was making enquiries with her about her homeless application. She says she was accused of lying. The Council has apologised that its staff made Ms B feel unsupported, has assured her it has spoken to the staff member, and it will provide training for the whole team. This is sufficient to acknowledge the complaint. Investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to achieve significantly more than this.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because part of the complaint has been made late, and I am satisfied with the action the Council has taken in response to the complaint. Even if we investigated, we could not achieve significantly more, or the outcome Ms B wants.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman