Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions on Mrs X’s homelessness. The Council provided a satisfactory remedy for wrongly saying it would evict Mrs X. Further investigation of what Mrs X was told by telephone is unlikely to be productive. Mrs X can ask the Council to review her accommodation’s suitability and can reasonably use her right to go to court if she remains dissatisfied.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s actions concerning her homelessness, in particular about how an officer spoke to her on the telephone and about difficulty travelling between her temporary accommodation and Tower Hamlets. Mrs X says this has caused her and her child distress and inconvenience.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council has given Mrs X homelessness temporary accommodation outside its borough.
7. Mrs X is unhappy with how a Council officer dealing with her homelessness spoke to her on the telephone. She is unhappy with some questions she was asked, with the officer’s tone, and with the officer saying the Council could evict Mrs X.
8. The Council accepted there was no legal basis to end Mrs X’s accommodation, so it had been wrong to tell her of an eviction date. The Council apologised, said this had been raised with the relevant staff and it would provide staff training. I consider the apology and other actions were a suitable remedy for the fault here.
9. The Council also expressed regret that Mrs X was upset by some other questions the Council officer asked, although the Council considered the areas of questioning were appropriate. I do not consider we could expect to reach a clear enough view about what was said, or the way in which it was said. Nor do I consider anything else said on the telephone would have caused Mrs X a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating.
10. Mrs X says she and her son have to travel regularly between the temporary accommodation and Tower Hamlets, for school, medical appointments and other reasons. She says the travel expenses are difficult to afford and the travelling is difficult because of her health problems, some of which have worsened. Mrs X wants the Council to provide temporary accommodation in Tower Hamlets.
11. Here, Mrs X is essentially suggesting her temporary accommodation is not suitable for her needs now. She can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. If the Council agrees the accommodation is not now suitable, it will then have to provide something suitable. If the Council decides the accommodation is suitable, Mrs X will then have a right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. So the restriction in paragraph 3 applies here. The law specifically provides this route for such situations, so we would normally expect people to use it. Mrs X can seek help with court action from a law centre, solicitor, advice agency or homelessness organisation. She might receive help with legal costs if she is eligible. I consider it would be reasonable in the circumstances to expect Mrs X to use her right to go to court if the Council does not decide the suitability review in her favour.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because: the Council has provided enough remedy for wrongly saying it would evict Mrs X; further investigation of telephone conversations is unlikely to be productive; and it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to seek a suitability review then go to court if necessary.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman