Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his housing. He said it impacted his physical and mental health, and caused unnecessary and avoidable distress. We do not find the Council at fault. We have not investigated two parts of Mr X’s complaint because they are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complained about the way the Council handled his housing. Specifically, he complained that:
1. temporary accommodation the Council provided was not suitable;
2. the Council failed to increase his priority banding on the housing register despite medical evidence he provided;
3. the Council failed to provide interim accommodation; and,
4. the Council racially discriminated against him.
2. Mr X said this impacted his physical and mental health, and caused unnecessary and avoidable distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
7. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have investigated parts a and d of the complaint.
9. Regarding part b of this complaint, Mr X complained to the Council about this in October 2023 which is after he brought his complaint to the Ombudsman (in August 2023).
10. As I have said above, we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied a council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. In this case, the Council had not considered this part of Mr X’s complaint when he complained to us. I consider it is reasonable to give the Council an opportunity to investigate and reply to this part of Mr X’s complaint.
11. For this reason, I have not investigated part b of this complaint.
12. Regarding part c of this complaint, Mr X took legal action about this. A court heard Mr X’s complaint and made a decision on it.
13. As I have said above, we cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter.
14. For this reason, I have not investigated part c of this complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

15. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Temporary accommodation

16. Homeless applicants have a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
17. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. If the applicant wishes to challenge the review decision, or if a council takes more than eight weeks to complete the review, they may appeal to the County Court. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204)

Discrimination / public sector equality duty

18. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
19. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
20. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are:
• age
• disability
• gender reassignment
• marriage and civil partnership
• pregnancy and maternity
• race
• religion or belief
• sex
• sexual orientation
21. The public sector equality duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:
• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and,
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
22. The broad purpose of the public sector equality duty is to consider equality and good relations into the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

What happened

23. Mr X presented to the Council as homeless. The Council accepted a duty to house him, and placed him in temporary accommodation. The Council told Mr X of his right to request a review of the suitability of the property.
24. Mr X moved into the temporary accommodation in spring 2023. He immediately told the Council it was unsuitable for various reasons. He asked the Council for a suitability review.
25. Six weeks later, Mr X was moved out of that address and into other temporary accommodation.
26. Mr X complained to the Council.
27. In its complaint response, the Council misspelt Mr X’s surname. The Council said the suitability review was pending so it could not comment on whether or not the temporary accommodation was unsuitable.
28. In its second complaint response, the Council apologised for the distress and upset caused by spelling Mr X’s surname wrong. It said this was human error and was not intended to cause offence.
29. The Council said that while Mr X lived at the temporary accommodation, the Council had worked with the managing agent of the property to resolve all of Mr X’s complaints. It said that since Mr X had moved out, it was satisfied the problems were no longer an issue.
30. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Suitability of temporary accommodation

31. Mr X complained that temporary accommodation the Council provided was not suitable (part a of the complaint).
32. Mr X lived at the property in question for about seven weeks. He requested a suitability review within a week of moving in. When Mr X was moved to other temporary accommodation, the Council had not completed its suitability review.
33. The Council had eight weeks to complete the suitability review from receiving the suitability review request. I find the Council did not have sufficient time to complete the suitability review before Mr X was moved to another property. I therefore do not find the Council at fault.
34. Mr X said the accommodation was not suitable when he moved in and the Council should never have placed him there. Before the Council placed Mr X there, it determined the accommodation was suitable. I have seen the way the Council determined it was suitable, with a suitability checklist and photos. I am satisfied the Council was entitled to decide the accommodation was suitable prior to Mr X moving in. Mr X may disagree with the Council’s assessment of the suitability of the accommodation but this is not evidence of fault. Mr X did what he should have done, which was to request a suitability review.

Discrimination

35. Mr X complained the Council racially discriminated against him (part d of the complaint). He said the Council misspelt his surname three times, and misspelt it in an offensive way. Mr X said the misspelling of his name was discrimination based on his race.
36. The evidence shows the Council misspelt Mr X’s surname four times in various communications, but none of these misspellings were offensive. While I consider this careless, and it caused Mr X frustration, I do not consider it significant enough to constitute fault. Further, it is not evidence that the Council failed to have due regard to its public sector equality duties.
37. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation. I do not find the Council at fault for parts a and d of this complaint. I cannot investigate parts b and c of this complaint because they are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman