Summary: A housing applicant complained that the Council unreasonably withdrew an offer of accommodation which he wanted, and then offered another property which was not suitable for his family’s needs. But the Ombudsman will not investigate this matter. This is because the applicant had a statutory right of appeal he could have used to challenge the Council’s decision about the suitability of the second property. In addition, there is no sign that any other fault by the Council caused him an injustice to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained that the Council had unreasonably withdrawn an offer of accommodation he had verbally accepted, and instead offered him an unsuitable smaller property saying it would end its housing duty in his case if he did not accept it.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely an investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (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)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. But we cannot investigate the actions of Housing Associations. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr B provided in his complaint. I also gave Mr B an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view in his case. In addition I took account of information from the Council about its decisions in Mr B’s case.

What I found

The Law

6. The Housing Act 1996 (“the Act”) sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
7. 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.
8. If the person wants to challenge a negative review decision they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.

What happened

9. Last year Mr B applied to the Council as homeless after his landlord gave his family notice to leave their private rented property.
10. The Council subsequently accepted a ‘relief’ duty under the Act in Mr B’s case. This meant it had to take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for Mr B’s family.
11. In July last year the Council telephoned Mr B to offer him a property owned by a local Housing Association (‘the Association’). The Council said the house would not be ready for occupation for a few months as the Association needed to do works to it. But Mr B was happy with the property and he verbally accepted the offer.
12. However around a week later the Council contacted Mr B again regarding another property owned by the Association. Mr B viewed the second house but did not want to accept it as he felt it was unsuitable considering his family’s size and needs. The house was also smaller than the first property. But at this point it emerged that the Association had withdrawn the first house from offer because they wanted to use it for one of their own tenants.
13. The Council then made Mr B a formal offer of the second property in order to fulfil its housing duty in his case. This meant its duty to Mr B would end whether or not he accepted the offer. In the circumstances Mr B reluctantly accepted the house, but he also asked the Council to review its decision that the property was suitable for his family’s needs.
14. The Council carried out a review, but it upheld its decision that the property was suitable. The review decision letter also informed Mr B about his right of appeal to the county court regarding this matter. However Mr B did not make an appeal.

Analysis

The suitability of Mr B’s accommodation

15. Mr B said his house is cramped and in poor condition. Mr B said this is impacting on his family’s relationships and health. He still feels the property is unsuitable. But I have concluded we should not start an investigation regarding these issues.
16. In particular the law says we normally cannot investigate where someone could take the matter to court. When the Council refused Mr B’s review request he had a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law. Mr B has not put forward any reason why he could not have used his appeal rights if he felt the Council’s review decision was wrong and there was a point of law to argue.
17. In addition, I am not convinced we would be justified in exercising our discretion to pursue Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision in his case, despite this restriction on our jurisdiction.
18. In particular, unlike the courts, the Ombudsman has no powers to overturn homelessness decisions or make rulings on points of law.
19. Our role is limited to considering if there is any fault in the way councils deal with homelessness cases. But we cannot question the merits of councils’ decisions unless there is fault in the way those decisions are made. From the information provided, however, I am not convinced we are likely to find reason to fault the Council for the way it made its review decision in Mr B’s case.

The condition of Mr B’s property

20. Mr B complained about the condition of his current accommodation and outstanding repairs issues. However the Ombudsman cannot consider this matter. This is because Mr B’s complaint in this respect is against his landlord, the Association, and we have no jurisdiction to deal with complaints about Housing Associations.

The withdrawn offer

21. I have also considered if the Council was at fault regarding the offer of the first property which it later withdrew. But I am not convinced that any fault on the Council’s part in this respect caused Mr B an injustice we should pursue.
22. First, it seems to me that the decision to withdraw the property from offer was made by the Association, which is entirely independent of the Council. So I do not see that the Council had any control over this decision.
23. From the information provided I suggest there is sign of some fault by the Council in the way it notified Mr B about the first offer. In particular it seems the Council did not make clear to him that this was a provisional offer which would need to be formally confirmed in writing.
24. In the circumstances it is understandable if Mr B believed the offer to be more definite than it actually was and that, as a result, he was misled into thinking he had secured the property in question.
25. However if Mr B’s expectations were unnecessarily raised by the Council, it seems this was only for a short period as he found out about the withdrawal of the offer around a week later. Therefore I consider any injustice in this regard was relatively short lived.
26. Mr B felt that, in the circumstances, his family should be allowed to stay in their current accommodation on a temporary basis until the first property became available, and he should then be offered that property on a permanent basis. Mr B was unhappy because the Council had not agreed with this proposal.
27. But I do not see that we would be able to find fault with the Council regarding this matter. In particular it seems to me the Council could not provide the outcome Mr B wanted as it would ultimately be for the Association to decide how their properties are used.

Back to top

Final decision

28. The Ombudsman will not start an investigation of Mr B’s complaint that the Council unreasonably withdrew an offer of a property he wanted and instead offered him another house which was unsuitable. This is because Mr B had a right of appeal to the county court about the Council’s suitability decision, and there is no sign that any other fault by the Council caused him an injustice to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman