Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has forced the complainant to live in her car because it provided unsuitable accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have used her appeal rights.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says she has been forced to live in her car because the Council provided unsuitable accommodation. Ms X wants the Council to provide suitable accommodation in a different area.

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 we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (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)
4. The court considers appeals about homelessness decisions and suitability.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered the suitability review and the evidence the Council took into account. I also considered comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness decisions

6. When a council accepts someone as homeless it must provide suitable accommodation. It can then discharge its homelessness duty. If the person thinks the offer is unsuitable they can accept the tenancy but ask for a review. If the review finds the property is suitable the person can appeal to the court on a point of law if they still disagree. If the review finds the property is unsuitable the council must provide alternative accommodation.

What happened

7. The Council accepted Ms X as homeless. It offered permanent accommodation in a one bedroom flat with a Council tenancy. Ms X accepted the tenancy but asked for a suitability review; she says she was forced to accept the flat. Ms X said the flat was unsuitable for many reasons. Some of the reasons she gave were that it is too small for her special bed, there is no bath, there is no room for a fridge, no private garden and the flat is in an area which is unsafe due to a previous assault.
8. The Council did a suitability review. As part of its consideration it obtained evidence from Ms X’s doctor and mental health team. The Council assessed each point in detail. It noted, for example, that the doctor had confirmed there is no record of a need for a special bed and no record that Ms X cannot use a shower. The Council explained there is room for a fridge, and no evidence of a medical need for a garden. The Council noted Ms X had not said the area is unsafe. The Council confirmed the flat is suitable and it had discharged its duty to Ms X because it had offered suitable accommodation. The Council told Ms X she had 21 days to appeal to the court if she disagreed with the decision. In a subsequent complaint reply the Council repeated the right of appeal and suggested Ms X get legal advice.
9. Ms X has been living in her car and has not moved into the flat. Ms X has rent arrears of £1688. The Council may take enforcement action if Ms X does not pay the arrears.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and it is not my role to decide if the flat is suitable. I have no power to tell the Council to offer Ms X different accommodation.
11. The Council offered a flat which is suitable for a single person and not in an area which Ms X had said was unsafe. It carried out a detailed suitability review and checked every point Ms X had made in relation to the medical evidence. There was no fault in the way the Council offered the flat or considered suitability so there is no reason to start an investigation. In addition, Ms X could have used her appeal rights.
12. Ms X she could not appeal due to the Council giving misleading information. But, I have seen the letters in which the Council explained her appeal rights and suggested she get legal advice. Ms X says she was forced to accept the flat. But, if she had not accepted it ,the Council would still have discharged its duty and Ms X would now be facing homelessness or might already be homeless.
13. Ms X says she would like to live in a different area. However, before the Council accepted Ms X as homeless, it gave her the option of withdrawing the application and applying to a different council. Ms X did not withdraw the application.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Ms X could have used her appeal rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman