The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a woman’s homelessness case. This is because the woman had statutory review and appeal rights she could have used to dispute the Council’s homelessness decision in her case. In addition, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council regarding other matters to warrant our further involvement.
My assessment
The Housing Act 1996 gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their homelessness application. This includes a decision that someone is Intentionally Homeless. If an applicant wants to dispute a negative review decision, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
In November 2021 the Council decided Miss C was Intentionally Homeless because of the circumstances in which she lost her last settled accommodation. By law Miss C had 21 days to ask for a review after receiving the decision. But 21 days had already passed by the time Miss C made a review request, and the Council rejected this as being out of time.
However I see no reason Miss C should not be expected to have asked for a review in good time, and if necessary to have used her right of appeal to court, if she felt the Council’s decision in her case was wrong. As a result I do not see that we should investigate this part of her complaint.
In addition, we are not a substitute for the courts regarding disputed homelessness decisions. In particular, unlike the courts, we have no powers to overturn homelessness decisions or make rulings on points of law. So we could not achieve the main outcome Miss C is seeking from her complaint which is for the Council to restore its homelessness duty in her case.
The Council was also entitled by law to end Miss C’s temporary accommodation booking after deciding that she was Intentionally Homeless, having given her a reasonable period to try and arrange her own accommodation.
In fact, after giving Miss C notice to leave following its decision, the Council subsequently agreed to a series of discretionary extensions to the notice period to allow her more time to find alternative housing. In the end Miss C remained in temporary accommodation for more than seven months after the Council’s decision before she was finally evicted. In the circumstances I do not see we would have grounds to fault the Council for ending her accommodation booking at that stage.
Miss C also complained about the Council’s failure to find her suitable alternative accommodation after finding her Intentionally Homeless. But I am also not convinced we are likely to find reason to fault it in this respect.
In particular I note the Council used its discretion to accept and then extend a new Housing Act 1996 Relief Duty in Miss C’s case. Under the Relief Duty the Council had to take reasonable steps to help Miss C secure accommodation. But there was no obligation on it to actually provide housing. In addition Miss C was also expected to try and find her own accommodation.
From the information provided, I note that between January and May this year the Council identified several properties around London which were available to rent privately. Miss C complained many of these were too small for her family or were otherwise unsuitable, and that the Council failed to pursue some properties she was interested in. But I understand the Council was limited in what properties it could identify for Miss C because of restrictions on the amount of rent which could be funded through the welfare benefits system.
In the circumstances I do not see we would be likely to find fault with the Council on the basis it had not taken reasonable steps to secure alternative accommodation for Miss C.
In addition Miss C complained that she could not obtain assistance from the Council’s social services.
The Housing Act 1996 says that where applicants with children are found to be Intentionally Homeless councils must refer the case to the social services authority. A referral is usually dependent on the applicant’s consent, but may be done without consent if there are concerns about a child’s welfare.
I note that in Miss C’s case the Council made referrals to social services in two other councils. But I do not see sign of fault in the Council’s actions as Miss C was living in those councils’ areas at the time. Miss C subsequently moved back to the Council’s area after she was evicted from her temporary accommodation, and I understand she is currently receiving support from its social services. As a result I consider it unlikely we would find cause to fault the Council regarding social services involvement in Miss C’s case.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss C’s complaint about the way the Council has dealt with her homelessness case. This is because Miss C had statutory review rights she could have used to challenge dispute the Council’s decision that she is Intentionally Homeless. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in other respects to justify our further involvement in her case.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman