Summary: We will not investigate a man’s complaint about the Council’s decision that the temporary accommodation it provided in his family’s case is suitable for their needs. This is because the man had a statutory right of appeal he could use to challenge the Council’s decision.

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 Mr B provided with his complaint. I also gave Mr B the chance to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view in his case.

What I found

The Law

5. The Housing Act 1996 (“the Act”) says councils have a legal duty to secure accommodation for 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 a decision about the suitability of accommodation they are offered. If an applicant wants to dispute a negative review decision, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.

What happened

7. Mr B applied to the Council as homeless. The Council accepted it owed Mr B the main housing duty. It also placed Mr B’s family in emergency accommodation.
8. Last October the Council offered Mr B temporary accommodation in another part of London. The Council was satisfied the property was suitable for his family’s needs. However Mr B disagreed and asked the Council to review this decision.
9. In particular Mr B said he needed to live close to his mother in Westminster as he and his wife were the main providers of care and support for her. Mr B also said his family was isolated in their new accommodation and had no support network in that area. In addition Mr B said his family needed to access their regular medical, dental and pharmacy services in Westminster as there was no comparable provision in their new area.
10. But following a review the Council upheld its decision that Mr B’s property was suitable. In particular the Council explained it used a banding system to decide where homeless families are placed in temporary accommodation, according to their needs. But it said Mr B’s circumstances did meet the criteria for Band 1 accommodation in Westminster and the immediately neighbouring boroughs.
11. The Council’s decision letter also informed Mr B that if he was dissatisfied with the review decision he had 21 days from the date he received the letter to appeal to the county court.

Back to top

Analysis

12. But I have concluded that we should not investigate Mr B’s complaint.
13. In particular the law says we normally cannot investigate a complaint where someone could take the matter to court, or could have done so. Mr B had a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law, and I see no reason why he should not be expected to have used his appeal rights if he considered the Council’s decision in his case was wrong in law.
14. We can consider 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. In addition, unlike the courts, we have no powers to overturn homelessness decisions or make rulings on points of law.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision that his temporary accommodation is suitable for his family’s needs. This is because Mr B had a potential right of appeal to the county court about the Council’s review decision in his case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman