The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the interim accommodation provided by the Council was unsuitable for his needs. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the faults accepted.
The complaint
Mr X complains the interim accommodation provided by the Council was unsuitable for his needs because of his reduced immune system. He also complains communication with the housing officer was poor and the Council breached data protection legislation by accessing his NHS records.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In May 2024, the Council accepted it owed Mr X the relief duty. The Council offered Mr X emergency accommodation which was a house in multiple occupation (HMO).
The Council accepted the main housing duty in July 2024 and moved Mr X to a self-contained property in August 2024.
If we were to investigate, it is likely we would find fault causing Mr X an injustice. This is because the Council has accepted a HMO was not an ideal property for Mr X due to his medical diagnosis. Further, the Council accepted medical evidence provided which supported the need for ground floor accommodation due to Mr X’s mobility.
Therefore, I am satisfied it is likely we would find the interim accommodation provided to Mr X was unsuitable. Therefore, Mr X was living in unsuitable accommodation for three months. This would have caused him significant distress.
The Council also accepted during its consideration of Mr X’s complaint that communication with him fell below the standards expected and that there had been a delay in accepting the main housing duty. I am satisfied these faults will have caused frustration to Mr X.
I therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by the faults accepted by: Apologising to Mr X for the distress and frustration caused by the faults accepted.
Make a payment of £300 per month to recognise the time Mr X spent in unsuitable accommodation. A total of £900.
Make a payment of £100 to recognise the distress and frustration caused by the Council’s poor communication.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council breaching data protection legislation because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the complaint.
Agreed action
To its credit, the Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will complete the above within four weeks of the final decision statement.
Final decision
We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the faults accepted.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman