Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this complaint that the Council unreasonably ended its homelessness duty in a woman’s case after she refused an offer of accommodation. This is because the woman had a statutory right of appeal she could have used to challenge the Council’s decision and, anyway, there is no sign of fault in the way it dealt with her housing case.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Ms B, complained that the Council had unfairly decided to end its housing duty and cancel her temporary accommodation booking after she refused an offer of permanent accommodation. Ms B complained in particular that the property the Council offered was unsuitable. She also said the Council had not warned her in advance that it could end its housing duty if she refused the offer. In addition Ms B queried the Council’s right to make a direct offer of a property rather allocate one through the normal bidding system

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. (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 Ms B provided in her complaint and her comments in response to a draft version of this decision. I also 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.
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.
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. Around five years ago Ms B applied to the Council as homeless, and it accepted the main housing duty in her case. Since that time Ms B and her family have lived in temporary accommodation provided by the Council.
9. During that time Ms B also continued to make bids for properties advertised through the Council’s Homesearch scheme. But she was unsuccessful with all her bids.
10. In August last year the Council directly offered Ms B one of its flats as permanent accommodation.
11. However Ms B turned down the offer as she considered the property was not suitable for her family’s needs. In particular Ms B was unhappy with the condition of the property and the fact that there was only one toilet. She also said it would be difficult for her to access the flat because of her medical problems.
12. But the Council did not accept Ms B’s refusal reasons and confirmed its view that the property was suitable for her. Ms B then asked the Council to review its suitability decision.
13. However the Council upheld its decision following a review. The Council also confirmed it had ended its housing duty in Ms B’s case, and it gave her notice to leave her temporary accommodation. Ms B did not make an appeal to the county court about the Council’s review decision.

Back to top

Analysis

14. Ms B’s main complaint was about the Council’s view that the flat it offered her was suitable for her family, and its resulting decisions to end its housing duty and ask her to leave her temporary accommodation. But I have decided that we should not investigate these issues.
15. In particular the law says we normally cannot investigate where someone could take the matter to court. When the Council refused Ms B’s review request she had a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law. I see no reason why Ms B could not have used her appeal rights if she felt the Council’s decision was unreasonable or wrong in law.
16. In addition, I consider there is no justification for us to exercise our discretion in this respect and nevertheless pursue Ms B’s complaints about the Council’s decisions in her case.
17. In particular, unlike the courts the Ombudsman has no powers to overturn homelessness decisions or make rulings on points of law.
18. 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. However I am not convinced there is sign of fault by the Council in Ms B’s particular case.
19. For example, Ms B complained the Council did not inform her in advance that refusing the offer could result in it ending its housing duty and evicting her from her temporary accommodation. But I note the Council’s offer letter in August said that a refusal may result in the Council discharging its duty and cancelling her temporary accommodation.
20. I also note the Council sent Ms B another letter the following month giving her a further opportunity to accept the offer and warning again that it was likely to end its duty in her case if she refused.
21. In addition, I suggest the Council’s review decision letter provides a considered analysis of the suitability issues in Ms B’s case, and I do not see any immediate signs in the letter of fault in its decision making in this respect.
22. It also seems the Council has offered Ms B appropriate help in finding her own accommodation. In particular the Council said it had referred Ms B to its Procurement Team which can help people find private rented housing and also provide financial assistance to secure accommodation.
23. Furthermore, although Ms B questioned the Council’s right to make her a direct offer of accommodation, I note that the Councils Housing Allocations Scheme gives it discretion to make direct offers in certain circumstances. As a result I do not see we would have grounds to find fault with it for deciding to make a direct offer in Ms B’s case.

Back to top

Final decision

24. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty in her case because she refused an offer of suitable accommodation. This is because Ms B had a potential right of appeal to the county court about the Council’s decision and, in any event, there is no sign of fault in the way the Council made its decision or in its handling of Ms B’s homelessness case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman