Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council offered a permanent home to the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because there were appeal rights the complainant could have used.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains about the way the Council offered her a home and its subsequent decision to evict her from her temporary accommodation (TA). Ms X wants the Council to reconsider its decision to evict her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. The court considers appeals about homelessness decisions.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the review decision sent to Ms X’s solicitor and medical evidence. I considered our Assessment Code and invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

5. When a council accepts someone as homeless it has a duty to provide suitable permanent accommodation. It can provide TA in the interim. If the person thinks the Council has offered unsuitable accommodation they can ask for a review and then appeal to the court on a point of law. If the Council decides someone has rejected a suitable offer it can discharge its homelessness duty and evict the person from the TA.
6. The Council accepted Ms X as homeless in 2015 and provided TA. It was aware Ms X had mental health issues but it did not award medical priority. In 2021 the Council offered a permanent home in a self-contained flat on the ground floor of a tower block. The Council made the offer on 6 October. Ms X expressed some doubts and was advised to accept the flat and ask for a review. Ms X neither refused nor accepted the flat and on 22 October the Council withdrew the offer. The Council discharged its homelessness duty because Ms X had not accepted an offer of suitable accommodation.
7. Ms X’s solicitor asked for a review. The Council issued a detailed review letter which covered the suitability of the offer and the discharge of duty. The Council found the offer was suitable and the Council was correct to discharge its duty. In reaching this decision the Council sought medical evidence, noted the flat is on the ground floor and there was no medical evidence that it would be unsafe. The Council noted the flat is three miles from Ms X’s support network, that it is not in a high crime area, and meets safety requirements. The Council accepted Ms X had not applied for the property but said its only duty is to provide suitable accommodation. The Council confirmed Ms X must leave the TA.
8. Ms X says the Council bullied her, ignored her mental health, and failed to recognise she did not refuse the flat. Ms X wants the Council to reinstate her homelessness status and reconsider its decision to evict her.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council gave Ms X over two weeks to decide whether to accept the flat and suggested she accept it and ask for a review. I appreciate Ms X felt under pressure but, equally, due to the shortage of housing, councils are under pressure to process offers promptly. In addition, the Council carried out a detailed review and covered all the relevant issues. The Council decided the offer was suitable but, because Ms X had not accepted it, there is no fault associated with its decision to discharge its duty and require Ms X to leave the TA.
10. I also will not investigate this complaint because Ms X could have appealed to the court if she disagreed with the review decision. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to have appealed because she had a solicitor and the courts could have decided if the offer was unsuitable or if the Council should reverse its discharge of duty decision. We do not have the power to decide if an offer was suitable or if a council was right or wrong to discharge its duty.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not investigate this complaint 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