Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council offered the complainant unsuitable accommodation. This is because the complainant could have used her appeal rights and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says the Council decided she was intentionally homeless even though the accommodation it offered was unsuitable.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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 information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, email exchanges and homelessness decisions. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council accepted Ms X as homeless in 2021 and provided temporary accommodation at property A. In July 2023 Ms X reported a leak; the Council advised her to contact the landlord.
6. In late 2023 the Council told Ms X it had to provide different temporary accommodation. It offered property B. Ms X asked for a review. She said property B was unsuitable due to vermin, disrepair, and the distance to schools, medical facilities and her child’s father.
7. The Council considered the issues and told Ms X it was planning to find the property was suitable. The Council says Ms X then abandoned the property.
8. The Council issued a decision saying the property was suitable. It addressed all the issues raised by Ms X. The Council also decided Ms X was intentionally homeless because she refused a suitable property. The Council reviewed both decisions but did not change them. The Council told Ms X she had 21 days to appeal to court on a point of law. The Council did a safeguarding referral to social services.
9. Ms X says the property was unsuitable and says the Council housed her for two years in a structurally unsound property. She says the Council wanted her to live near an ex-abuser and left her on the street.
10. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Ms X could have used her appeal rights. The suitability and discharge of duty decisions addressed all the issues Ms X raised. It is not our role to decide whether the offer was property suitable. However, I am satisfied the Council addressed the issues correctly and notified Ms X of her appeal rights. Ms X could have appealed if she did not think the Council had applied the law correctly. It is reasonable to expect her to appeal because the courts have the power to decide if a property was suitable.
11. Ms X says the Council planned to house her near an ex-abuser. Ms X could have included this in her review request. The Council said Ms X had not identified the area as unsafe, had referred to the incidents taking place in 2015/16 and had reported that she did not know if the perpetrator was still in the area. Ms X could have included this in the review and in a court appeal.
12. Ms X says the Council housed her in an unsafe property from 2021. I have not seen any evidence she asked for a suitability review in 2021 and the only reference to disrepair was in July 2023. Ms X did not raise this in her complaints to the Council and we can only consider issues that have completed the Council’s complaints process.
13. Ms X says the Council left her homeless. The Council says she abandoned the tenancy when she found out the Council was likely to decide the property was suitable. It is possible Ms X could have stayed in the property for a short time to give her time to find alternative accommodation. In addition, the notes say Ms X told the Council she could find somewhere to live for two months while the Council found her somewhere else to live. The notes also say the Council discussed alternative housing options in the private sector.
14. I appreciate Ms X thinks the property was unsuitable but I have not seen any suggestion of fault in the way the Council handled her application and there is no reason to start an investigation. We do not act as an appeal body and have no power to tell a council it must house someone and no power to overturn a homelessness decision.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint because Ms X could have used her appeal rights and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman