Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this complaint that the Council unreasonably housed a family in private rented accommodation far from their support network. This is because the Council has offered to carry out a fresh review about the suitability of the accommodation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs B, complained that the Council had unfairly ended its homelessness duty in her case by offering her a private rented property away from her normal support network and her childrens’ school.

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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome, 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 normally cannot 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 Mrs B provided with her complaint, and her comments in response to a draft of this decision. I also took account of information from the Council about Mrs 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.
6. The Act also gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their homelessness application. This includes decisions about the suitability of accommodation they are offered and the ending of the council’s housing duty in their case.
7. If the person wants to challenge a negative review decision, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.

What happened

8. Mrs B applied to the Council as homeless about four years ago. The Council accepted it owed her family the full housing duty under the Act.
9. Since that time Mrs B and her family have lived in different properties the Council provided to them as temporary accommodation.
10. Mrs B also applied for permanent social housing through the Council’s housing register. However she was not successful with her bids for properties advertised under the Council’s lettings scheme.
11. In March 2019 the Council moved Mrs B’s family to different temporary accommodation as the landlord of their existing property wanted to end the lease.
12. But Mrs B was unhappy with the new property because it was difficult for her to manage the stairs due to her medical condition. As a result Mrs B asked the Council to review the allocation. Following a review the Council accepted that the property was unsuitable.
13. In June 2019 the Council offered Ms B a house rented from a private landlord. The Council said it was making the offer to discharge its housing duty under the Act in Mrs B’s case. Therefore its duty to Mrs B would end whether or not she accepted the offer.
14. Mrs B was not happy with the offer because it was private rented accommodation, and because the property was some distance from her support network and her childrens’ school. Mrs B felt the Council should offer her permanent social housing as she had spent four years being moved around different temporary accommodation properties. But she accepted the property out of fear her family would become homeless if she refused.
15. Mrs B then asked the Council to review the suitability of the accommodation. But the Council upheld its decision that the property was suitable and its housing duty to Mrs B had now ended. Mrs B then complained to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

16. However I consider we do not have grounds to start an investigation in Mrs B’s case.
17. In particular, in response to my enquiries about Mrs B’s complaint, the Council said it was unable to locate a copy of the review response it sent her last year regarding the suitability of her current accommodation. As a result it has offered a fresh suitability review.
18. Homelessness applicants have statutory review and appeal rights about councils’ homelessness decisions, and we normally expect people to use the rights the law has provided in this respect.
19. In the circumstances I consider the Council’s offer of a second review is a satisfactory way of dealing with Mrs B’s complaint as it allows the Council to reconsider the suitability issue in her case.
20. In addition, if the Council still upholds its decision that Mrs B’s accommodation is suitable following the review, she will then have a fresh opportunity to appeal to the county court about the review decision if there is a point of law to argue.
21. I see no reason at this stage why Mrs B should not be expected to continue pursuing her review rights and to use her right of appeal to the county court, if this proves necessary.
22. Furthermore, I do not see we could achieve a better outcome than this for Mrs B by investigating her complaint. In particular, unlike the courts, the Ombudsman has no powers to overturn homelessness decisions or make legal rulings in housing cases.

Back to top

Final decision

23. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council had unreasonably offered her unsuitable private rented accommodation to meet its homelessness duty in her case. This is because Mrs B still has statutory review and appeal rights she can use to challenge the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman