Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s housing. We have already dealt with the complaint about the suitability of the current temporary accommodation. Miss X could reasonably have taken court action about the suitability of another property the Council offered, and that part of the complaint is also late. The Council no longer owes Miss X a homelessness duty so no longer needs to provide accommodation. Any allegation the Council has adversely affected Miss X’s health is appropriately for the courts.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains when she was homeless the Council: gave her accommodation unsuited to her medical needs; offered alternative accommodation also unsuited to her medical needs, ignoring her medical evidence; and now wants her to leave her accommodation. Miss X says this has affected her health and caused stress to her and her family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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)
5. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

The Council providing Miss X’s current accommodation

7. The Council provided this homelessness temporary accommodation (‘Property B’) in 2019. Our decision on Miss X’s previous complaint to the Ombudsman dealt with her complaint about Property B being unsuitable. Miss X still being in this temporary accommodation (after refusing alternative accommodation) does not affect our previous decision on this point. We shall not revisit that decision.
8. Also, the claim that Property B adversely affected Miss X’s health is essentially a claim of personal injury resulting from neglecting to consider Miss X’s medical needs. The courts can consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 4 applies here. Negligence and liability for injury are not necessarily straightforward matters legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide them. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to go to court if she wants a ruling on this.

Offer of alternative accommodation

9. In November 2019 the Council offered long-term accommodation at a different property (‘Property C’) to end its homelessness duty. Miss X refused that offer, saying Property C did not meet her medical needs.
10. In such circumstances, the applicant has the right to ask the Council to review its decision. An applicant who remains dissatisfied after the Council’s review can appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204)
11. Miss X used her right to ask the Council to review the suitability of Property C. On 20 March 2020, the Council sent its review decision, stating it considered Property C suitable for Miss X.
12. Miss X has known since March 2020 the Council had not changed its position and would end its homelessness duty if she did not accept Property C. Therefore the restriction in paragraph 3 applies to this point. Miss X could reasonably have complained to us about this much sooner. I do not see good reason to accept this late complaint now.
13. Even if the points in the previous paragraph did not apply, suitability of accommodation to end homelessness duties is a legal matter. So the restriction in paragraph 4 applies to this point.
14. Miss X had no reason to expect the Council to change its position after the review decision. I note the review decision was only a few days before the Government’s COVID-19 restrictions took effect. The courts did not work normally for some periods during the COVID-19 restrictions. So Miss X might not have been able to go to court in the usual 21-day period after 20 March 2020. Nevertheless, if Miss X considered Property C unsuitable, she could reasonably have applied to the court for a late appeal once court services became more normal, after taking advice if necessary. Miss X could reasonably have sought advice (in person or by telephone), for example from a solicitor, law centre, advice agency or housing advice organisation. In the circumstances, I consider it would have been reasonable to expect Miss X to go to court, which is the route the law provides for such disputes.
15. For these reasons, I shall not investigate this part of the complaint.

The Council now wanting Miss X to leave her accommodation

16. The Council has asked Miss X to leave Property B. The Council only provided Property B as temporary accommodation while it had a legal homelessness duty to Miss X. So, there is no obvious fault in the Council wanting the accommodation back now it no longer owes Miss X a duty. I understand the Council is considering court action to evict Miss X. If the Council starts court action, Miss X could take legal advice and defend her position in court, if she believes the Council is legally wrong. That would be a matter for the court, not the Ombudsman, to decide.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman