Summary: The evidence currently suggests fault on Mr Q’s complaint about the Council failing to decide his suitability review request within the statutory timescale which caused him some uncertainty. The agreed action of an apology remedies the injustice caused. There was no fault on his other complaints.

The complaint

1. Mr Q complains about the Council:
1. losing his belongings stored in the flat he rented when it moved him to another property;
2. failing to prevent the landlord of the property he rented from December 2023 to March 2024 from entering it without consent;
3. moving him from a property to avoid making a decision about its suitability: and
4. asking his landlord not to put a fridge freezer or washing machine in the temporary accommodation it found him.
2. As a result, this cost him financially but, also caused him great distress and alarm.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. 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)
6. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I exercised discretion to investigate complaint a). Usually, we would not investigate this because the law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. 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)
8. While Mr Q could have issued proceedings at court for the loss of his possessions, I considered it would not have been reasonable to expect him to do so in all the circumstances. The circumstances included his health as well as the move from the property itself.
9. I also exercised discretion to consider his complaint about the Council failing to send him its decision on his suitability review request within the statutory 56 days for the same reason, even though he had the right to appeal it to the court under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996.
10. I did not investigate any complaint Mr Q had about the Council’s action after March 2024. This was because this was the date when he complained to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered all the information Mr Q sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversations, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr Q and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Complaint a): losing his belongings stored in the flat he rented when it moved him to another property

12. Mr Q complained when he moved out of temporary accommodation (property 1) to temporary accommodation in another city in March 2022, the Council told him to pack a bag for the taxi ride only. He said this was because there were no storage facilities at the new temporary accommodation for the rest of his possessions.
13. I have seen no evidence of communication between Mr Q or his solicitors and the Council about his possessions at this point in time. While his solicitor emailed Mr Q about asking and discussing the Council’s intentions about his possessions, there was no evidence to show this took place.
14. His solicitor emailed him the same month and asked him to clarify a list of possessions, which Mr Q did. This included, for example, a chest of drawers, some tables, a bed frame, two mattresses, sofa set, and a television. He said his solicitor sent the Council an inventory of his possessions. Mr Q argued the Council should have taken its own inventory when he moved.
15. Mr Q said he was asked not to cancel his housing benefit for property 1 as the Council would use it to store his belongings he left there. There was no evidence to support Mr Q’s claim.
16. The Council confirmed the landlord of property 1 mentioned an inventory was taken at the time but, there was no record of it. The Council said it was for Mr Q, and the landlord, to have agreed an inventory at the time. It also confirmed there was no formal agreement between it and the landlord about the storage of his possessions. It said storage was free at property 1 and only Mr Q and the landlord had a key to a lockable room his possessions were stored in. Mr Q said his brother had returned the key when he moved.
17. After moving him from another property, the Council moved him again in December 2023. This was to property 2, also temporary accommodation. As property 2 was large enough for him to have all his possessions in, Mr Q contacted the Council about their return. He said it sent him a photograph showing only a few items. He could see many of the items were not his and many of his possessions were not shown. I have seen a copy of this photograph. He claimed his belongings included clothes and appliances, for example.
18. He then asked his brother to collect his possessions. When his brother went to property 1, he found nothing belonging to Mr Q.
19. The Council told Mr Q in January 2024, it understood he would be moving his possessions from property 1. It provided an updated list of possessions. This included, for example, a chest of drawers, some tables, a bed frame, two mattresses, and a television.
20. Mr Q complained to the Council about his lost possessions. He noted what the Council had said in its responses to his formal complaint. This was that all remaining items in his flat had been boxed up and removed but were never separated.
21. The Council provided ten photographs showing Mr Q’s possessions. These included: a chest of drawers; a fire, a chair; sofa; carpet and a holder; an electric fan; a TV digital box; plates; a clock; a television; an air drier; a small glass table.

My findings

22. I am not satisfied there was fault by the Council on this complaint. This was because there was nothing to show the Council was aware at the time of him moving from property 1, that he had possessions which needed storing. Nor was there any supporting evidence of the Council saying he should not cancel his housing benefit for property 1 which would allow it to be used for storage. I am not satisfied it had any duty, in these particular circumstances, to act to protect his possessions.

Complaint b): failing to prevent the landlord of the property he rented from December 2023 to March 2024 from entering it without consent

23. In December 2023, Mr Q accepted a move to property 2 without seeing it. When he moved in, he reported works it needed to the Council which included repairs and pest control measures.
24. The Council confirmed Mr Q raised various disrepair issues when he moved in, An officer spoke to the property manager who had keys to the property. The manager said he did not need Mr Q in the flat to carry out pest control works. Mr Q had no objection to this, and the officer told him he may receive calls, or out of hours visits, for emergency issues such as the problem he claimed he had with the boiler.
25. In January 2024, Mr Q reported the caretaker for regularly entering his property without warning using a key as well as for communicating with him at inappropriate times. On one occasion, he claimed the caretaker entered the property at 4am while Mr Q slept. The caretaker denied this claim.
26. The officer again contacted the caretaker and advised Mr Q no longer gave him consent to enter without prior warning or appointments. The caretaker disputed Mr Q’s version of what happened and agreed to a joint inspection with a Council inspector.
27. The Council told Mr Q officers spoke to the management agents who agreed no unannounced visits would take place without an appointment and they would look at fixing a safety chain to his door. The Council carried out an inspection of the property when Mr Q was not there, as his brother allowed access. The manager agreed to fix a safety chain to the door and agreed unannounced visits would not be done. The manager later confirmed in writing that nobody would enter the property without a prior appointment.

My findings

28. I found no fault on this complaint. This was because:

• the evidence showed the Council contacted the management agents for property 2 when alerted to Mr Q’s concerns;
• it was agreed there would be no further unannounced visits to his property; and
• the evidence showed the Council took his reports seriously and acted on them.

Complaint c): moving him from a property to avoid making a decision about its suitability

29. In December 2023, Mr Q asked the Council to review the suitability of property 2 he had just accepted. This was because there were four steps leading to the main door which he said he could not climb. He also said it had no fridge freezer, a leaking boiler, and cockroaches. Mr Q believed the Council later moved him from property 2 to avoid a legal challenge about its suitability.
30. When moving Mr Q to property 3, the Council took account of a note of a telephone call from Mr Q which recorded him saying: the caretaker kept entering the property; the caretaker pushed past him to carry out an inspection of his flat; he no longer felt safe there and spent some time sleeping in a car; he wanted the Council to move him. It said these were the reasons why it moved him, not because it accepted property 2 was unsuitable as claimed by Mr Q.
31. An email thread between officers in January 2024 showed officers were aware of these issues. This evidence also showed officers were initially hoping to address these to avoid having to move Mr Q again. There was also evidence of the management agent arranging pest control to visit property 2 on three occasions.
32. The Council also took account of an email from the management agent which said Mr Q was making it difficult for the caretaker to resolve issues he raised.
33. The Council explained it also took account of the challenges between Mr Q and the property’s management.
34. Having done so, it went through Mr Q’s personal circumstances and recorded the transfer reason as due to ‘Complex medical case’.
35. The Council accepted the review request about the property’s suitability was redundant as he longer lived in it. It also accepted it failed to carry out his review request within the statutory 56-day timescale. This was because of staffing issues following the Christmas period. It has now recruited more staff to clear the backlog.

My findings

36. I found the following:
1. There was no evidence to support Mr Q’s claim the reason for moving him from property 2 was an intention to avoid a challenge about its decision it was a suitable property. Indeed, the evidence showed the Council initially hoped to address the issues Mr Q raised to avoid having to move him again. I am satisfied the evidence the Council considered showed various ongoing problems when it reached its decision to move him. I found no fault on this complaint.
2. The Council failed to decide his review request within the statutory 56 days. Mr Q had a right of appeal to the courts on a point of law when the Council failed to notify him of its decision within this period. Mr Q had 21 days from the date it should have notified him of its decision to make the appeal.
3. The Council moved him 4 weeks after it should have reached its decision on his review request. I consider the failure to reach a decision on his request within 56 days was fault.
4. I am satisfied this caused him an injustice as he lost the opportunity to have a decision reached on it, had the uncertainty about what was happening with his request, as well as uncertainty about whether the Council would have agreed it was unsuitable. When considering his injustice, I took account of the fact the Council had moved him and so was no longer living in property 2.

Complaint d): asking his landlord not to put a fridge freezer or washing machine in the temporary accommodation it found him

37. Mr Q complained property 2 had no working fridge freezer and believed the Council asked the landlord not to put one in, or a washing machine. When he spoke to an officer at the Council, he claimed he was told the officers had advised the landlord not to replace the fridge freezer and not to get a washing machine.
38. The Council confirmed there was a small fridge freezer in the property when let to Mr Q but confirmed it had no obligation to provide a washing machine in temporary accommodation. The minimum requirement for such accommodation was a cooker and fridge freezer. It denied the claim it asked the landlord not to provide a fridge freezer.
39. The inspection report for the property dated 23 November 2023 confirmed there was a working fridge/freezer in it.
40. An email from the Council to the management agent in December noted Mr Q said the manager had tested the replacement fridge who confirmed it was not working and needed returning to get a refund.
41. A further inspection report was done in mid-February 2024. This noted a problem with a leaking fridge freezer which did not work. Nearly two weeks later, Mr Q emailed the Council again about problems but did not mention anything about the fridge freezer
42. The Council’s ‘Temporary and Privately Rented Accommodation Minimum Property Standards’ stated properties shall have a cooker, an adequate fridge/freezer or fridge and freezer, which will be clean and in good working order. It went on to state washing machines are not required but there should be enough space for one to be installed, with appropriate fittings in place to allow its installation.

My findings

43. I found no fault on the complaint about the fridge/freezer because:

• on balance, I am satisfied there was a working fridge/freezer when the initial inspection was carried out prior to the start of the tenancy. This was because the inspection report for this visit recorded it as being in working condition;
• there was no supporting evidence of the Council telling the management agent not to have a fridge/freezer in the property;
• the records show the management agency replaced the fridge/freezer with a small one but then this too also needed replacing after being alerted to it not working in December;
• the second inspection report done in February 2024 showed there was a problem with that fridge. An email from Mr Q shortly afterwards did not mention a problem with a fridge. On balance, I concluded this was because the fridge problem was resolved following the February inspection; and
• there was no independent corroborating evidence to support a finding of fault by the Council. There was no corroborating evidence showing any period when Mr Q had no working fridge at all.

44. I also found no fault on the complaint about the washing machine. This was because under its policy, there was no obligation on the Council to ensure its temporary accommodation had one.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. I considered our guidance on remedies. I also considered the action the Council already took to recruit more staff as a result of the delay dealing with his review request within 56 days.
46. The Council agreed, within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint, to send Mr Q a written apology for failing to deal with his suitability review request within the statutory timescale.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I found the following on Mr Q’s complaint against the Council:

• Complaint a): no fault;
• Complaint b): no fault;
• Complaint c): fault and the agreed action remedies the injustice caused; and
• Complaint d): no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman