The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about lack of support when he moved to a new property. We could not add to the previous investigations by the Council and housing provider.
The complaint
Mr X complained about a lack of support and being put under pressure to sign the tenancy agreement when he moved to a new property. He also said the property was not suitable for him and was in a state of disrepair.
Mr X said that, as a result of the Council’s failings, he became homeless again and suffered avoidable distress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X bid for property A using the Council’s choice-based lettings system. The housing provider carried out a verification interview, following which it formally offered property A. Works were being carried out at property A at that point and Mr X raised concern about the timescale for the property being available to let.
Almost a month later, the housing provider told Mr X property A was ready to let. Mr X said he needed more time to decide whether to sign the tenancy. The housing provider asked the Council if Mr X could stay longer in temporary accommodation, but the Council said that was not possible. The housing provider also tried to arrange for a support worker to attend the tenancy sign-up meeting with Mr X the following day, but support worker was not able to do so.
Mr X moved into property A but then decided it was not suitable for him. The housing provider agreed he could surrender the tenancy. It waived the notice period and the rent due, and it repaid the rent paid in advance. This meant Mr X did not pay any money for property A.
In its complaint response, the housing provider accepted he was not given enough time to make an informed decision about accepting the tenancy, for which it apologised. It set out changes to its approach in future, including reviewing the information it shares with potential tenants, and being more proactive in ensuring that support workers attend meetings when applicants are vulnerable. This was appropriate action for the housing provider to take.
The housing provider confirmed it had carried out an inspection of property A after the works were completed and did not accept it was in a state of disrepair. It also noted Mr X had not raised any concerns about disrepair when he viewed property A with a lettings officer. It did not uphold that part of the complaint.
Mr X also complained to the Council, which replied to the concerns raised with reference to the complaint responses from the housing provider. It said Mr X had a temporary accommodation support officer, who regularly visited him to offer support, and confirmed the case had been managed in the way expected.
Mr X asked the Council to consider the complaint further at stage 2. However, by that point, the Council had restricted its communications with Mr X in line with its Unreasonably Persistent and Vexatious Customers process. It decided not to consider the complaint further because it was difficult to determine his concerns due to the nature of his communications with it.
We will not investigate this complaint further. I am satisfied the Council and the housing provider have properly addressed the concerns Mr X raised and, where appropriate, taken action to improve their services in future. We could not add to their investigations and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council and the housing provider.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman