The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council was at fault for saying it would end Ms X’s temporary accommodation and its duties towards her without providing a proper decision letter or notice. The Council has agreed to pay Ms X £500 for the distress she was caused. This is a suitable remedy so we will not investigate this complaint. We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaints about the suitability of her accommodation as she has a right of appeal to court.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council threatened to evict her from her temporary accommodation without good reason. Ms X says this caused her significant distress.
Ms X is also unhappy that the Council has placed her in unsuitable accommodation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X previously complained to the Ombudsman about the Council threatening to end her temporary accommodation without justification. The Council apologised for this and said it would make service improvements. We said this was a suitable remedy.
Since then the Council has continued to state that it will terminate Ms X’s temporary accommodation and end its duty towards her, specifically in a telephone conversation and email of 11 January 2022. This is fault.
Whilst the Council is entitled to remind homeless households of the potential consequences it should not make definite statements of actions it will take until it has decided to do so. Any decision to end a homeless duty or terminate someone’s temporary accommodation should be issued in the correct way and by letter explaining a person’s rights of appeal and setting out a proper notice period.
The Council’s continued statements that it will end Ms X’s temporary accommodation and it its duty towards her has caused her significant distress. I have taken account of previous threats the Council has made in reaching this decision.
We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaints about suitability of accommodation the Council has offered her. This is because she has a right to request a review of the Council’s decision that accommodation is suitable and a right to appeal to county court should she remain unhappy with the review decision. I consider it reasonable to expect Ms X to go to court if she is unhappy with the Council’s decisions.
Agreed action
Following my recommendation the Council has agreed to pay Ms X £500 to acknowledge the distress she has been caused.
The Council should pay Ms X within four weeks of my final decision.
Final decision
Subject to any comments Ms X might make, my view is we should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has provided a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.
We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaints about the suitability of accommodation the Council has offered her as she has a right of appeal to court.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman