The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: A homeless woman complained that the Council had offered her unsuitable accommodation. But we will not investigate this matter as the woman has statutory review and appeal rights she can use to challenge the suitability of the Council’s offer, and we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking in this respect.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The law says we normally cannot 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 Miss B’s complaint. I also took account of information from the Council about its correspondence with Miss B. In addition, I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Housing Act 1996 (“the Act”) sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who apply to them as homeless.
If a council is satisfied the applicant is eligible, homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless, it will owe them the main housing duty. In that case the council must secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. Councils may carry out the main duty by arranging temporary accommodation. But they can also bring the duty to an end if the person refuses an offer of suitable temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193) The Act also gives applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their application. This includes decisions about the suitability of accommodation they are offered to meet a housing duty, and about ending the main duty. If an applicant wants to challenge a negative review decision, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
The Council owed Miss B the main housing duty and it placed her in temporary accommodation. However the Council later accepted the accommodation was unsuitable and it agreed to make her another offer.
The Council recently offered Miss B a second floor flat as new temporary accommodation. But Miss B said she would refuse it as unsuitable. In particular she said she could not manage the stairs to the flat with her children, and the property was infested with cockroaches. Miss B asked the Council to carry out a review of the suitability of the accommodation.
In response to my enquiries the Council said it had carried out further cleaning at the flat and was giving Miss B another opportunity to accept the property. But if she refuses the offer again it will then write to end its housing duty in her case. The Council said the letter would confirm Miss B’s right to request a review, including about the suitability of the property, which it will consider at that stage.
In the circumstances I have decided that we should not investigate Miss B’s complaint.
In particular, the law has provided Miss B with a right of review regarding the suitability of the accommodation offered to her and about any decision the Council now makes to end its housing duty in her case. I see no reason why she should not be expected to use her statutory review rights.
In addition, the law says we usually cannot investigate a complaint where someone could take the matter to court. If, after a review, the Council upholds its view about suitability and its decision to end its housing duty, Miss B would then have the possibility of appealing to the county court on a point of law. I also see no reason why Miss B should not be expected to go to court if necessary in order to challenge a negative review decision which she considers is wrong in law.
Unlike the courts we have no powers to overturn homelessness decisions or rule on points of law. Therefore we cannot make our own decision about Miss B’s homelessness application or force the Council to change its view. So as Miss B’s aim is for the Council to reverse its decision and offer her other suitable accommodation, I also do not see we could achieve the outcome she is seeking from her complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council has offered her accommodation which is not suitable for her family’s needs. This is because Miss B has statutory review and potential court appeal rights she can use to challenge the Council’s decision and, in any case, we cannot achieve the outcome she wants from her complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman