Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s offer of unsuitable accommodation under its homeless duty. It was reasonable for Miss X to use the appeal/review procedure to challenge this. Miss X also complained that she was misinformed about being able to remain on the housing register with her previous status. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council pressurising her into accepting unsuitable accommodation under its homelessness duty. She says the accommodation offered was unaffordable and that key facts about the property were misrepresented. She says she was told verbally that she could remain on the housing register in her previous banding but when she accepted the tenancy she was removed from the register.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says the Council offered her unsuitable accommodation when she was under its homelessness duty. She felt pressured to accept it because she was told that she may be considered to be intentionally homeless if she refused.
6. The Council had a duty to advise Miss X of the potential outcome of refusing a final offer of accommodation under its duty. The mention of being intentionally homeless is a matter of fact and although she could challenge the suitability of the offer or any discharge of the homeless duty, the Council may well have decided she was intentionally homeless had she refused.
7. We cannot determine if an offer of accommodation is unsuitable because there is a right of review and further appeal to the County court under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 for such matters. It was reasonable for Miss X to ask for a s.202 review and the Council’s response confirmed that she has done so. If the review is unsuccessful she will have further appeal rights under s.204.
8. Miss X also says she was given misleading information about her housing application. she says she was told verbally that she would be able to retain her banding of Band B and her status on the housing register. The Council says there is no evidence of any written advice to Miss X about this and it is not the procedure when an applicant is rehoused.
9. We cannot verify what Miss X has claimed. The allocations procedure with most housing authorities is that when someone moves to a new address they must complete a new application. Miss X was rehoused under the homelessness duty and her previous Band B status applies only to her previous situation. Because she had a new address she would need to complete an application which may not give the same priority or may mean she no longer qualifies for the register if she is adequately housed.
10. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s offer of unsuitable accommodation under its homeless duty. It was reasonable for Miss X to use the appeal/review procedure to challenge this. Miss X also complained that she was misinformed about being able to remain on the housing register with her previous status. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman