The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s housing. Miss X could reasonably have used her right to go to court about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty. On disrepair and Miss X’s energy bills, there was no fault by the Council on some points and we could not achieve more on other points.
The complaint
Miss X complains the Council has not offered her long-term housing she considers suitable to end her homelessness. She also complains about disrepair in her current housing. She says this had disadvantaged her and her children as they do not have stable long-term housing.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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, or would have been, unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council’s position on offering Miss X long-term housing The Council provided Miss X’s current address as temporary accommodation pending an offer of long-term accommodation to end the Council’s legal homelessness duty to Miss X. Miss X says the Council has treated her badly because it is unfair that she and her family are not in stable, long-term housing.
In 2021 the Council offered long-term housing. Miss X refused, arguing it was unsuitable. Miss X used her legal right to ask the Council to review the suitability of the offer. The Council’s review decision in September 2021 said the offer was suitable, so ended the Council’s homelessness duty to Miss X. Miss X now says the review decision was wrong because it took account of other properties she had bid unsuccessfully for. She says she did not want any of those properties and only bid for them because of poor advice from a Council support worker.
If Miss X disagreed with the Council’s review decision, she had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law within 21 days. Her argument that the Council wrongly gave weight to her bids for other properties is an argument about how the Council reached its position on suitability, which is a point of law. So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to this part of the complaint.
The Council’s review decision told Miss X about her right to go to court. The law expressly provides that right for situations such as this, so we normally expect people to use it. The court had could have overturned the Council’s decision and made a binding order if it saw fit, which the Ombudsman cannot do. Miss X could have sought help with going to court, for example, from a solicitor or advice agency; indeed, the Council’s review decision told her how to seek such advice.
For these reasons I consider it would have been reasonable to expect Miss X to go to court when she had the right. Therefore we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
The Council is seemingly now seeking to end Miss X’s current accommodation. The Council only provided it as temporary accommodation until it ended its homelessness duty, which has now happened. So there is no fault on this point.
Disrepair in the property Miss X is unhappy the landlord did not continue replacing beds that had already been replaced. I do not criticise the Council on that point.
Some damaged furniture and other items were repaired rather than replaced, which the Council said was acceptable as the accommodation was only temporary. In the circumstances, there was no fault in the Council’s position.
While the Council was considering Miss X’s complaint, Miss X said only part of the hob was working. The Council arranged for the landlord to inspect the property. I see no fault in that as a first step. If Miss X believes this has not been properly repaired, she could then raise it further with the Council. It would be disproportionate for the Ombudsman to pursue this point currently.
It appears Miss X was asked to pay too much towards her energy bills. The Council contacted the landlord to reduce what Miss X had to pay and reimburse Miss X. We cannot reasonably achieve more than that.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because Miss X could reasonably have used her right to go to court about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty. On disrepair and Miss X’s energy bills, there was no fault by the Council on some points and we could not achieve significantly more on other points.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman