The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s use of a hotel for temporary homeless accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault or personal injustice which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council using a hotel in his locality for temporary housing accommodation for homeless applicants. He says it is unsuitable for their needs and that it may be a breach of planning regulations and could affect crime in his area.
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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says the Council has started using a hotel in the area where he lives to house homeless applicants in temporary accommodation. He and other residents are concerned that this is unsuitable for the applicants because of its location and that it is not self-contained accommodation. They complained to the Council.
The Council told them that whilst bed and breakfast and hotel accommodation is not ideal for homeless applicants, it is permitted for short term use under the homeless legislation and similar commercial accommodation is widely used throughout the country. Any homeless applicants who believe the accommodation is unsuitable can challenge the offer of accommodation through their right to a statutory review and further right of appeal to the County Court under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996.
Whilst Mr X and others may have concerns for the applicants accommodated in the hotel, they do not represent the applicants and cannot claim that this is a personal injustice to them.
Mr X also complained about alleged criminal activity on the premises such as smoking drugs and also about the waste storage conditions. Criminal activity is a matter for the Police and Mr X has offered to provide witness statements to the Police. He lives half a kilometre from the site so it is unlikely that any activity on the premises could affect him directly due to the distance.
Mr X and other residents questioned the use of the premises for homeless persons without a change of use under planning regulations. The Council says that the current usage does not amount to a change of use of the premises and should this change in future than a planning application or enforcement may be considered.
We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern but where they have not suffered significant injustice.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s use of a hotel for temporary homeless accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault or personal injustice which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman