The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to carry out repairs in Mr X’s temporary accommodation. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s suitability review to justify further investigation. In addition, investigation would be unlikely to achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out repairs in his temporary accommodation for over nine months. He says he was also threatened with eviction, the Council did not use an interpreter when gathering information for its review, and communication from the Council was poor.
Mr X would like compensation for the distress caused, and to be rehoused in a property with two bathrooms.
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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X lived in temporary accommodation. He complained to the Council about having to live in damp and mouldy accommodation between May 2024 and January 2025. Mr X and his children have medical conditions. He says the accommodation affected their health.
Mr X had the right to request a suitability review and he used this right. The Council inspected his temporary accommodation and gave a reasoned explanation in its decision letter about why it was suitable. Mr X then had a right to take this to County Court.
We would usually expect people to use this right. However, given Mr X’s medical conditions and wider circumstances, it would not have been reasonable for him to take this matter to County Court. We will not, however, investigate this complaint. We cannot question or change a decision made without fault. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s review to justify investigating.
Mr X says when the Council called him to discuss the review, it did not use an interpreter. The evidence shows the Council did sometimes use an interpreter when speaking to Mr X. However, its note of the call says it asked Mr X and he did not request one. We will not investigate this part of the complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
Even though the Council’s review found the property to be suitable, it offered Mr X two other properties. The Council says Mr X refused the offers. Mr X says he did not refuse. He says the Council expected him to move the next day which he could not do and he could not view the properties. We will not investigate this part of the complaint. Even if we were to find fault with the Council’s offers of alternative accommodation, the evidence is that Mr X told the Council he did not want to move twice. He said he preferred to wait to move into his permanent accommodation when it was ready. Any fault in the offers has not, therefore, caused a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.
The Council addressed Mr X’s concerns about the threatened eviction in its complaint correspondence, apologised and offered a payment for poor customer service, delay, and poor communication. This is in line with our guidance on remedies. Investigation of these parts of the complaint would be unlikely to achieve anything further.
In any event, investigation would be unlikely to achieve the outcome Mr X wants. He wants the Council to move him to another property. He accepted an offer of social housing. He had a statutory right to review its suitability. An investigation of this complaint would not recommend rehousing for Mr X or a financial remedy of the amount he seeks.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X would like.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman