Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to evict her from her accommodation without providing a suitable alternative. This is because we cannot investigate the Council’s decision to evict her and it was reasonable to expect her to go to court if she wished to challenge the Council’s decision that she is not in priority need.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs B, complained about the Council’s decision to evict her from her accommodation without providing a suitable alternative. She is concerned about the effect the stress she is suffering will have on her health.

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 complaints about the provision or management of housing let on a long lease by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5B, schedule 5, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information Mrs B provided, including medical information, her comments on my draft decision, her photographs and the Council’s review decision under section 203 of the Housing Act 1996, as amended. I have also spoken to Mrs B by telephone.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs B formerly lived in a property she was subletting from a council tenant. In January 2018 she first contacted us to complain about the Council’s decision to evict her causing her to become homeless. The Council provided temporary accommodation for Mrs B from January 2018 pending the outcome of its enquiries into her homelessness application.
7. Mrs B contacted us again following the Council’s decision in June 2019 that she was not in priority need. That meant the Council decided it did not have a duty to secure accommodation for her. The Council reviewed its decision but did not change it. In its review decision the Council told Mrs B she had to the right to appeal to the county court if she believed the Council’s decision was wrong in law.
8. We cannot investigate Mrs B’s decision about the Council’s decision to evict her. That is because we cannot investigate complaints about the Council’s management of its social housing. The decision to evict Mrs B was part of the Council’s role of managing its social housing.
9. If Mrs B wanted to challenge the Council’s decision that she was not in priority need, it was reasonable to expect her to use her right of appeal to the county court. That is because this is the specific method the law provides for challenging the Council’s decision. Also, the county court has powers we do not have to confirm, quash or vary the Council’s decision.
10. Mrs B told us she has recently made a new application to the Council, supported by a letter from her GP. If she is unhappy with the way the Council deals with her new application, she can make a new formal complaint. We must give the Council an opportunity to consider and respond to new complaints before we consider them.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint. This is because we cannot investigate the Council’s decision to evict her and it was reasonable to expect her to go to court if she wished to challenge the Council’s decision that she is not in priority need.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman