Summary: A woman complained that the Council did not follow proper procedures in dealing with her homelessness case. But we will not investigate this matter. This is mainly because the woman had separate review and appeal rights she could have used to challenge the Council’s decision to end its housing duty in her case, and there is no other sign of fault by the Council which has caused her a significant injustice.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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, for example, we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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 Miss B provided, her complaint correspondence with the Council, and documents from the Council about her homelessness case. I also considered Miss B's comments and the photographs she submitted in response to a draft of this decision, before I reached a final view in her case. In addition, I took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Housing Act 1996 (‘the Act’) gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their application. This includes a decision to end a housing duty in their case and about the suitability of accommodation they are offered under the main housing duty. If an applicant wants to challenge a negative review decision they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
6. After Miss B applied to the Council as homeless it offered her emergency accommodation (‘Property X’). However Miss B did not move into Property X and later refused it on the basis it was in poor condition, unsafe and too far from her support network.
7. For its part the Council acknowledged there were issues with the condition of Property X when Miss B viewed it. But it made arrangements with the landlord for these matters to be fixed and it confirmed the works had been done by the following week. However Miss B still refused the offer. As a result the Council ended its duty to provide emergency accommodation in Miss B’s case.
8. Later on the Council accepted it owed Miss B the main housing duty, which meant it had to make her a further offer of accommodation. The Council offered Miss B a temporary property (‘Property Y’) in the London area, and informed her that its housing duty would end if she turned it down. But the Council also advised Miss B about her right of review regarding the suitability of the accommodation.
9. Miss B refused the offer, mainly due to Property Y’s distance from the support she needed. The Council then ended its main housing duty in her case, again advising about her statutory right of review. But Miss B did not ask for a review.
10. However I consider we should not investigate Miss B’s complaint. First, I am not convinced there is enough sign of fault by the Council regarding emergency accommodation which has caused Miss B a significant injustice.
11. In particular, I have not seen clear cut evidence that Property X was completely unsuitable for occupation when it was first offered to Miss B. In addition, even though some repairs were needed and some parts of the accommodation were not in a clean condition, it seems the Council arranged for remedial works to be done in a relatively short time. I also see no reason to doubt the Council’s view that there was no other emergency accommodation available at the time which was closer to Miss B’s preferred area.
12. Second, because homelessness applicants have separate review and appeal rights under law concerning councils’ decisions in their case, we usually expect people to use those rights. I see no reason why Miss B should not be expected to have used her right to a review, and if necessary to have appealed to court, if she considered the Council’s decisions about the suitability of Property Y, and to end its housing duty, were flawed because correct procedures were not followed.
13. Also, unlike the Council and the courts, we have no powers to overturn homelessness decisions. So we cannot make our own ruling about Miss B’s homelessness case or force the Council to change its decision.
14. In addition, I do not see we could achieve the main outcome Miss B wants from her complaint. This is because she would need to make a successful bid under the Council’s Housing Allocations scheme to qualify for an offer of permanent social housing.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council did not follow proper procedures in dealing with her homelessness case. This is mainly because she had statutory review and potential court appeal rights she could have used to dispute the Council’s homelessness decisions. Also, there is no sign of fault by the Council regarding other matters which caused her an injustice to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman