Summary: A woman complained that the Council had unreasonably decided she was intentionally homeless and had failed to help her family with housing despite their difficult circumstances. But the Ombudsman will not investigate this matter. This is because the woman has statutory review and appeal rights she can use to challenge the Council’s decision, and there is no sign of other fault in the way it has dealt with her housing case.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Ms B, complained about the Council’s decision that it has no duty to house her because she is intentionally homeless. Ms B also complained the Council had not given her enough help in finding alternative accommodation. She felt the Council had treated her very poorly given the serious health and other problems affecting her family

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault, 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)
3. 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

4. I considered the information Ms B provided in her complaint and her representative’s comments when we spoke on the telephone. I also gave Ms B’s representative an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view. In addition I took account of information from the Council about its decisions in Ms B’s case.

What I found

The Law

5. The Housing Act 1996 (“the Act”) says councils have a legal duty to house homeless people who are eligible, have a priority need, and are not intentionally homeless (i.e. they are not homeless through their own fault).
6. The Act also gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their homelessness application. This includes a decision the person is intentionally homeless.
7. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to provide accommodation in those circumstances.
8. If the person wants to challenge a negative review decision, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
9. Where a homeless person has a priority need but is intentionally homeless, councils still have a duty to give advice and assistance to the person in finding somewhere to live. But councils do not have to provide any housing themselves.

What happened

10. Ms B applied to the Council as homeless after she was threatened with eviction form her private rented accommodation because of rent arrears. When Ms B was evicted in September 2018 the Council placed her family in temporary accommodation while it looked into her case.
11. But in May 2019 the Council decided it did not owe Ms B the main housing duty because she was intentionally homeless. This was due to her eviction for rent arrears. In addition the Council gave Ms B notice to leave her temporary accommodation at the end of May. But it also offered Ms B financial assistance in finding alternative private rented housing, under its under its rent deposit scheme.
12. Ms B’s support worker asked the Council to review its intentional homelessness decision. The support worker also asked the Council to provide temporary accommodation for Ms B while it reviewed her case.
13. In its response at the end of May the Council invited Ms B to make further representations to support her review request. But it says it did not receive any further contact from Ms B about her review.
14. Later the Council also turned down Ms B’s request for an extension of her temporary accommodation booking pending the review.
15. Meantime Ms B and her children, one of whom has special needs, stayed temporarily with a relative and a friend. Ms B also said they spent time sleeping in her car.

Back to top

Analysis

16. Ms B’s main complaint is about the Council’s decision that she is intentionally homeless. But I consider that we should not look into this part of her case.
17. In particular the law provides homelessness applicants with review rights if they wish to challenge the Council’s decision on their application. The Council said Ms B’s review case is still open, and it is still possible for her to make representations and have her review request considered. In the circumstances I see no reason why Ms B should not be expected to pursue her statutory rights in this respect.
18. In addition, the law says we normally cannot investigate where someone could take the matter to court. If the Council refuses Ms B review request she would then have a right of appeal to the county court if there is a point of law to argue. So it appears there is still potential for Ms B to challenge the Council’s decision in her case in court.
19. In contrast to the courts, the Ombudsman has no powers to overturn homelessness decisions. Our role is limited to considering if there is any fault in the way councils deal with homelessness cases.
20. But I am also not convinced there are grounds for us to intervene regarding any other aspect of the way the Council has dealt with Ms B’s case.
21. In particular I consider the Council’s letter refusing Ms B temporary accommodation during the review indicates it gave suitable consideration to her request. I also consider it provided a reasoned response. As a result I do not see we are likely to find fault with the Council for deciding not to exercise its discretionary power to continue providing temporary accommodation in Ms B’s case.
22. Having found Ms B intentionally homeless the Council only had a limited duty to give her advice and assistance in finding her own accommodation. But from the information provided I am also am not convinced there is sign of fault by the Council in this regard.
23. In particular I note the Council offered Ms B the possibility of financial help in finding alternative private rented accommodation under its rent deposit assistance scheme. The Council said it also offered to refer Ms B’s case to social services to see if they had any duty to help her family under the Children Act 1989.
24. In addition the Council has recently confirmed that Ms B is still able to use its rent deposit assistance scheme if she needs financial help in obtaining accommodation in the private sector.

Back to top

Final decision

25. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s decision that she is intentionally homeless and its failure to give her sufficient help in finding alternative accommodation. This is because she has statutory review and appeal rights she can use to challenge the Council’s decision. In addition there is no sign of fault in the help the Council has offered Ms B in finding her own housing.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman