Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s homelessness. Ms X could reasonably ask the Council to review its decision about the steps it is taking, then, if she is still dissatisfied, she could reasonably use her right to go to court.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council is not offering her temporary accommodation to meet its homelessness duty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council’s legal duty is to take “reasonable steps” to help Ms X to secure that she has suitable accommodation for at least six months. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B(2)) The Council says it is meeting that duty by telling Ms X about privately rented properties it believes might be suitable for her. Ms X says the landlords of those properties will not accept her because of her previous rent arrears, so she believes the Council should offer her temporary accommodation itself to meet its legal duty. The Council disagrees it needs to do that.
6. Essentially, this is a disagreement about whether the Council is properly taking “reasonable steps.” The law gives Ms X the right to ask the Council to review its decision about the “reasonable steps.” (Housing Act 1996, section 202(1)(ba)(i)) If Ms X were to be dissatisfied with the Council’s review decision, she could then appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204) The questions of whether the steps the Council is taking are reasonable and whether the Council should arrange accommodation itself are points of law related to the legal concept of “reasonable steps” and to the Council’s various legal duties on homelessness. So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies.
7. The law expressly provides the review and appeal route for disputes about whether the Council is taking “reasonable steps.” Therefore we normally expect people to use that route. Ms X can seek advice from an advice agency, homelessness organisation, solicitor or law centre, for exmaple, if she wishes. There might be some cost to court action, but that in itself does not automatically mean the Ombudsman should investigate the matter instead. That is especially the case here, where the argument is about the extent of the Council’s legal duties. In all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect Ms X to use her review and court appeal rights.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because Ms X could reasonably ask the Council for a review and, if still dissatisfied, she could reasonably use her right to go to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman