Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council arranging shared accommodation for Ms X when she became homeless. This is because she could have asked the Council for a statutory review of the suitability of that accommodation, and it was reasonable for her to have done so. Further, we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants, which is to be rehoused in the Council’s area, because the Council has since discharged its housing duty. Ms X had a right of appeal against that decision, and it was reasonable for her to have used it.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council arranged shared accommodation for her when she was homeless. She said this was not suitable for her medical needs.
2. Ms X further complained the Council had offered alternative accommodation outside its area when she left the shared accommodation but did not assist her to travel there. She said she wanted to stay in Coventry or close by.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X asked the Council for assistance in June 2023. It accepted a relief duty and provided interim accommodation. In early August, the Council accepted a main housing duty, which meant the interim accommodation became temporary accommodation. From this point, Ms X had the right to ask the Council for a statutory review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation. It was reasonable for her to ask for a statutory review if she did not think the shared accommodation was suitable. If she was unhappy with the outcome of the review, she would have had a right to appeal to the county court.
8. In late August, the Council considered moving Ms X due to difficulties she was having with other residents. The Council said Ms X asked for a move to self-contained accommodation, that is accommodation where she did not have to share kitchen and/or bathroom facilities. The Council said it explained it would not arrange self-contained accommodation unless there was evidence of a medical need for this.
9. After discussing the matter with the Council and the housing provider, Ms X decided not to move. The Council issued a warning letter, explaining it would end its housing duty if there were further incidents of antisocial behaviour (ASB) or house rule breaches.
10. In September, there was a further incident of ASB, and the housing provider asked Ms X to leave the temporary accommodation. The Council offered Ms X accommodation outside its area to allow Ms X time to find alternative accommodation. It said she refused to move to the other area on two separate occasions.
11. After investigating the ASB incident, the Council decided to end its housing duty on the basis Ms X’s behaviour had led to her eviction from the temporary accommodation and she was therefore intentionally homeless.
12. Ms X asked for a review of the decision ending the housing duty. The Council arranged accommodation for her, pending the review, but she did not take this up, so it was ended.
13. The Council carried out a review of the decision. It considered all the information it had, including Ms X’s comments on the original decision. It decided the original decision was correct. It explained she could appeal to the county court and gave her information about how to get legal advice and support to appeal.
14. I understand Ms X did not appeal. The law expressly provides this route for challenging such decisions, so we would normally expect people to use it. The court can make a binding decision and overturn the Council’s decision if it sees fit, unlike the Ombudsman. The Council told Ms X about her appeal rights and explained where she could get help to do so. We will not investigate because it was reasonable for her to have used her right to go to court. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants, which is to be rehoused in the Council’s area.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she could have asked for a statutory review of the suitability of the shared accommodation, and it was reasonable for her to have done so. Further, she had a right of appeal against the decision she was intentionally homeless, and it was reasonable for her to have used that right. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman