Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s temporary accommodation. There was no fault in the Council not offering different accommodation during the review. Mr X could reasonably have used his right to go to court on the review decision.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains on behalf of Mr X that:
• The Council did not provide alternative accommodation while reviewing the suitability of Mr X’s homelessness temporary accommodation; and
• The Council’s review wrongly decided the existing temporary accommodation was suitable.
2. Mr Y says this has resulted in Mr X remaining in crowded accommodation that does not meet Mr X’s health needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.

I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We previously investigated a complaint from Mr X about various homelessness points, including the Council’s failure to deal with his request for it to review the suitability of his temporary accommodation. Our decision on that complaint, on 21 November 2022, recommended the Council should complete a suitability review. I shall not revisit that decision or the previous complaint.
7. I have only considered events related to the suitability review since our previous decision. In that time, from December 2022 to February 2023 the Council considered the review request. On 23 February 2023 the Council’s review decision upheld its view the temporary accommodation is suitable for Mr X.
8. The Council did not provide alternative temporary accommodation during the recent suitability review. This would be at the Council’s discretion. The Council says moving Mr X to different temporary accommodation would pre-empt the result of its review of the current accommodation’s suitability. In this case, the Council decided the accommodation was suitable anyway. I do not fault the Council for not offering alternative temporary accommodation while it reviewed the suitability of the original temporary accommodation.
9. Mr X disagrees with the review decision that his accommodation is suitable. Mr X had the right to appeal against the Council’s decision, on a point of law, to the county court within 21 days of the review decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 204) Therefore the restriction in paragraph 3 applies here. The law expressly provides this route for challenging such decisions, so we normally expect people to use it.
10. I am satisfied Mr X knew about that right as the Council’s review decision letter mentioned it. The court can make a binding decision and overturn the Council’s decision if it sees fit, unlike the Ombudsman. There might be a potential cost to court action, but that does not in itself make court action unreasonable, and applicants can get help with court costs if they are eligible. Mr X has physical and mental health difficulties. However, he has been able to pursue matters, for example with the Council and us, and has been able to seek help as appropriate. He could reasonably have sought advice about appealing, for example, from an advice agency, homelessness organisation, solicitor or law centre. He could also have asked the court to make reasonable adjustments for any disability.
11. For these reasons, it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use his right to go to court when he had that right. It is also open to Mr X to ask the court to consider a late appeal, though it would be for the court to decide whether to agree.
12. Mr Y’s complaint to us suggested Mr X wants to make ‘a legal claim for emotional distress.’ Legal claims for damages for the impact of allegedly unlawful actions are more properly for the courts than for the Ombudsman. This point relates closely to Mr X’s dissatisfaction with his temporary accommodation. I have explained above why we will not investigate that. In that context, it would be reasonable for Mr X to take court action if he wants a ruling on any legal claim.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there was no fault in the Council not offering different temporary accommodation during the review. Mr X could reasonably have used his right to go to court about the review decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman