The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s accommodation. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to ask the Council for a suitability review and to use her right to go to court.
The complaint
A solicitors’ firm complained on behalf of Ms X that the Council had provided unsuitable homelessness temporary accommodation for Ms X and her family.
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 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 some copy correspondence from the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The solicitors representing Ms X told us the Council provided Ms X’s accommodation under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996. That is a duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation for a homelessness person.
A homeless person who believes their temporary accommodation is, or has become, unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. If the Council decides the property is unsuitable, it must provide alternative temporary accommodation. If the Council’s review decision says the property is suitable, the person can then challenge this on a point of law in the county court. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204) Whether a Council has properly considered the concept of suitability of accommodation, as legally defined, is a point of law. Therefore, the restriction in paragraph 2 applies.
The law expressly provides this route for disputes about the suitability of temporary accommodation, so we normally expect people to use this route. Ms X is advised by solicitors, so it is reasonable to expect the solicitors would tell her of her suitability review and appeal rights and help her, if necessary, to use those rights. The court can overturn the Council’s position and make a binding order if it sees fit. There is a possible cost implication with court action. However, help with legal costs might be available. Also, the potential cost of court action is not in itself automatically a reason for the Ombudsman to investigate instead. Overall, I consider it is reasonable in the circumstances to expect Ms X to ask for a suitability review and then, if applicable, to go to court.
Ms X claims the allegedly unsuitable accommodation causes psychological injuries to her and her family, for which she wants compensation. This point is essentially a personal injury claim, which the courts can consider, so paragraph 2 above applies here as well. Questions of negligence, liability for any injuries and assessing damages are not necessarily legally straightforward. Such matters are properly for the courts to decide. So it is reasonable to expect Miss X to go to court if she wants a ruling on this point.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is reasonable in the circumstances to expect Ms X to use her rights to seek a suitability review and to go to court.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman