The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness case. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a statutory review of its decision to discharge the homeless duty. Following this he would have had an opportunity to challenge the review decision by way of an appeal to the courts.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s offer of unsuitable temporary accommodation under its homelessness duty. The Council decided to discharge its duty under the legislation because he refused to accept the temporary accommodation which it says was suitable for his needs. Mr X says he is now street homeless because of the decision.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X approached the Council as homeless in 2023 following problems with accessing his private rented home. The Council accepted him under the relief duty and provided interim accommodation. Mr X says the hotels first offered were unsuitable for his housing needs. In December 2023 the Council accepted the main housing duty to Mr X.
Mr X was offered supported accommodation in a hostel which it says had suitable facilities for his vulnerability. Mr X refused the accommodation because he says it was too far from his medical consultants and he did not wish to share a kitchen with other residents. He engaged the services of solicitors who sent pre-action letters to the Council threatening judicial review of the offer.
The Council responded to the solicitors and stated that it considered the accommodation to be suitable and that the medical evidence Mr X had provided was insufficient to indicate he lacked capacity or was disabled. It reminded the solicitors that he had a right to a statutory review and that litigation was not the normal means of challenging a homelessness decision. That review right carries further rights to appeal to the County Court.
It is not our role to consider the outcome of a homeless decision itself.
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
In this case the Council advised Mr X of his right to a statutory review of the decision in its decision letter. He was legally represented and it was reasonable to expect him to exercise his right to review and further appeal.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness case. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a statutory review of its decision to discharge the homeless duty. Following this he would have had an opportunity to challenge the review decision by way of an appeal to the courts.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman