Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about temporary accommodation. This is mainly because Mr X could reasonably have used his rights to a Council review and, if necessary, to go to court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not deal properly with problems in homelessness temporary accommodation, which caused inadequate conditions for his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The problems Mr X describes with the property include dangerous electrical installation, a roof leak, high levels of damp in two bedrooms, inadequate heating and a room in the loft Mr X says was unsafe and unusable for various reasons, which he argued meant the property effectively had only two bedrooms rather than the three his family needed. Mr X’s complaints to the Council in 2022 described this as ‘inappropriate housing’ and said the Council ‘illegally housed’ his family in the property. He wants the Council to refund all the rent he paid over the years he lived in the property and provide compensation.
8. What Mr X alleges is not a property that was suitable for his family but with a few repairs needed. Rather Mr X in effect argues the accommodation was unsuitable for his family.
9. A homelessness applicant can ask the Council to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 202). Mr X knew of this right as: he had used it in previous temporary accommodation in 2017; our decision in December 2018 on a previous complaint from Mr X described that right; and the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint in February 2022 also described it. Mr X was able to communicate with the Council and with us. So he could reasonably have used his review right about the property’s suitability.
10. If a Council review had decided the property was unsuitable, the Council would then have had to provide suitable temporary accommodation. If a review decision had upheld the property was suitable, Mr X would have had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204) The issues here concerned how the Council considered suitability in the legal sense, which is a point of law. So the restriction in paragraph 3 above applies.
11. Mr X could have sought advice if he wished, for example, from a homelessness organisation, advice agency, solicitor or law centre. There is a possible cost to court action, but that does not automatically make it unreasonable to expect someone to go to court. Help with legal costs can be available and, if Mr X won his appeal, he could ask the court for his costs. The law expressly provides the review and appeal route for disputes such as this and the court can overturn the Council’s decision, which the Ombudsman cannot. So we normally expect people to use that route. Therefore it would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to ask for a Council review then, if necessary, to go to court.
12. Mr X claims the property’s conditions damaged some of his belongings, including a triple wardrobe he says he had to throw away. This point concerns alleged negligence causing damage. Liability for such matters is not straightforward legally, so if Mr X cannot resolve this by an insurance claim, it would be reasonable to expect him to go to court on this point.
13. Also, Mr X says the problems with the property continued for five years. He previously complained to us about the property in 2018. We were satisfied the Council had taken necessary action by January 2019. We shall not revisit that decision now. Mr X first contacted us about the current concerns in July 2022. So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to events before July 2021. Mr X knew before then about the property’s condition and how to complain to the Council and to us. He could reasonably have complained much sooner about these earlier events. For this reason, we will not investigate events before July 2021 even if the points in paragraphs 7 to 12 above did not apply.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. He could reasonably have used his rights to a Council review and, if necessary, to go to court. He could also reasonably go to court about the claimed damage to belongings. Part of the complaint is also late without good reason to accept it now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman