Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject Mrs X’s challenge to its decision on the suitability of accommodation offered to her under its homeless duty. It was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal the Council’s decision to the County Court on a point of law.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council offering her unsuitable accommodation in 2021 which she signed a tenancy for. She says her social housing home is too small and suffers from disrepair.

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)
3. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X applied to the Council as homeless in 2021. She was accepted for the main housing duty and in December she was offered an introductory social housing tenancy which would be made a permanent assured tenancy after 12 months. She accepted the tenancy which was a two-bedroom flat considered by the Council as suitable for Mrs X, her husband and son.
7. Mrs X accepted the tenancy but later asked for a review of suitability for the offer because she said the flat was too small, had outstanding repairs and was affecting her mental health because of this. She provided a letter from her social worker supporting her view that her mental health situation prevented her from making a reasonable decision when she signed the tenancy.
8. The Council carried out a review and confirmed that it believed the flat is suitable for Mrs X’s housing needs and that the offer discharged its homeless duty to her. It said the flat is suitable for a family of three and that she is not statutorily overcrowded as both bedrooms have space for a bed and a wardrobe. She also has a living room which counts as available sleeping accommodation under the statutory overcrowding requirements.
9. Mrs X and her husband did not raise any matters of her mental capacity to sign for a tenancy when she applied as homeless and signed the agreement. The repair issues are the responsibility of the social housing landlord and are outside our jurisdiction, although the Council says they have been resolved by the landlord by the time of the review decision.
10. The review decision under s.202 carries a right of appeal to the County Court if a tenant wishes to challenge the discharge of duty by the accommodation offered. It was reasonable for Mrs X to seek advice from a housing or legal centre and the Council advised her of her appeal rights in the decision letter.
11. We will not investigate a complaint where there was an alternative remedy available to the complainant.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject Mrs X’s challenge to its decision on the suitability of accommodation offered to her under its homeless duty. It was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal the Council’s decision to the County Court on a point of law.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman