Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the suitability of his temporary accommodation because this is too closely connected to the Council’s decision he has made himself intentionally homeless. Mr X has a right of appeal against that decision and it is reasonable for him to exercise that right.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failings, which caused a mental health breakdown, and led to the Council deciding he had made himself intentionally homeless. He said he was left in unsuitable temporary accommodation that was infested with rats and affected by mould. He said his psychiatrist wrote a letter saying the property was affecting his mental health, but the Council ignored it. He said he complained multiple times to the Council but it did not respond. He also complained that he asked for a review of the Council’s decision he was intentionally homeless but the Council did not carry out a review.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council arranged temporary accommodation for Mr X at property A in June 2020 when he became homeless.
8. In May 2024, it decided he was intentionally homeless because property A had become uninhabitable because of Mr X’s own actions. The Council upheld this decision on review in October 2024. Mr X has right of appeal to the county court if he disagrees with that decision and it is reasonable for him to exercise that right. Therefore, we will not investigate any complaint about that decision or about any matters that are covered by the appealable decision.
9. The Council’s decision explains it considered property A was suitable for him in 2020 and says it would still be suitable for him if he had not caused damage to it. The review decision refers to the Psychiatrist’s letter, which it had considered. It also refers to reports of damp and mould, and disrepair from 2020 onwards. It said the managing agent was willing to carry out works but Mr X restricted their ability to do so. It also said Mr X was offered alternative accommodation whilst work was carried out but refused this. Since the disrepair is a key part of the Council’s decision, this could be considered by the court when dealing with an appeal, and therefore it is not appropriate for us to investigate further.
10. There was a delay in carrying out the review, which should have been done within eight weeks. However, this has not caused Mr X a significant injustice because the outcome remained the same and he was allowed to stay at property A pending the outcome of the review. There is insufficient injustice to justify further investigation, which would be unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome.
11. In relation to the Council’s complaints handling, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in September 2023. Mr X said he was unhappy the matter had been treated as a complaint. He did not ask the Council to consider the complaint further at stage 2 of its complaints proceed and did not complain to us until September 2024. We asked the Council to respond at stage 2 of its complaints process and it did so in early October 2024. We would not usually investigate a council’s complaints handling if we are not investigating the underlying complaint. In any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has a right of appeal against the Council’s decision, which it is reasonable for him to exercise and key parts of his complaint relate to aspects of that decision. There was a delay in carry out a review but we will not consider this further because it did not cause sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman