Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assistance with accommodation in response to Miss X’s homeless application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It was reasonable for her to seek a review or appeal to the County Court about suitability of homeless accommodation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council offering her an unsuitable property in response to her homeless application. She says she needs two bedrooms and declined the Council’s offer of a one bedroomed property. She also says the Council has failed to offer to pay initial rental for a private sector property she identified because it says it is unaffordable for 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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 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 the information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X says that the Council offered her an unsuitable tenancy for her needs when she applied as homeless following a notice being served by her landlord. The Council offered a 1-bedroomed flat which it says was suitable for her and her son who was under the age of one.
7. The Housing Act 1985 defines overcrowding standards and says that property with any rooms which can be used as sleeping accommodation can be counted as such. The flat has a separate living room which makes it suitable for her and her son. Children under the age of ten only count as half a person for overcrowding standards and under one they are not considered at all in the calculation.
8. When Miss X declined the Council’s offer it advised her that it had discharged its duty under the homeless accommodation and would not make a further offer. She had exceeded the 21 day timescale for asking for a review of suitability but the Council said it could use its discretion to consider a late request.
9. Instead, Miss X has been seeking alternative accommodation in the private sector. She says she found a suitable two-bedroom property but cannot afford rental in advance. She asked the Council to pay rental in advance for her but it does not consider the property to be affordable, regardless of promises from her family to assist her monthly payments.
10. The Council has no obligation to fund private rented property which exceeds its reasonable benefit levels when it has made an offer of alternative accommodation which was rejected and has discharged its homeless duty. It was reasonable for Miss X to challenge the decision to discharge the homeless duty and suitability of accommodation by way of a review and an appeal to the court if necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assistance with accommodation in response to Miss X’s homeless application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It was reasonable for her to seek a review or appeal to the County Court about suitability of homeless accommodation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman