Summary: Miss X complains the Council offered her accommodation out of borough in an unsafe area. We do not find fault with the Council as it followed the relevant law and guidance.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the council housed her in an unsafe area. She says the Council failed to consider her medical conditions and offered her accommodation far from her support network.
2. Miss X would like the Council to re-house her near her support network and family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. Normally we do not investigate complaints which have a right of appeal to court. Miss X had a right of appeal to court about the suitability of her accommodation. However it was not reasonable in the circumstances to expect Miss X to have gone to court due to her being heavily pregnant and having issues with her mental health at the time, so we have exercised discretion to investigate her complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke with Miss X and considered the information she provided.
9. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
10. I considered relevant law and guidance, as set out below and our guidance on remedies, published on our website.
11. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

12. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.

The main housing duty

13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Suitability of accommodation – including out of area placements

14. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
15. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:

• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)

Localism Act

16. The Localism Act 2011 introduced new freedoms to allow councils to better manage their waiting list and to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs.

Fault

17. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether anyone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
18. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

What happened

19. Miss X filed a homeless application to the Council in October 2019. The Council accepted the S193 duty to secure alternative accommodation in March 2021.
20. Miss X has three children and the Council were housing her in various hotels. In January 2023 the Council offered her a private sector accommodation out of borough.
21. Miss X had three choices; accept the offer, accept the offer and request a review of suitability of the offer, or refuse the offer. If she refused the offer the Council duty would end and she could not apply for social housing for two years.
22. Miss X accepted the offer and made a suitability request review. The Council said it offered her both this accommodation and another suitable property further away, but Miss X said she would continue with this offer.
23. Miss X said this is not the case and she was only offered the other property after she signed the lease for this one.
24. Miss X instructed solicitors to make her representations to the Council for the suitability review in March and May 2023. They said the property was not suitable for the following reasons:
• Miss X’s medical conditions. She was diagnosed with anxiety and depression, and moving had worsened her symptoms;
• The area was unsafe, Miss X had been the victim of many death threats in the past by people living in the area;
• Miss X’s family, friends and support network are in London. Miss X was heavily pregnant with her fourth child and needed her partner for emotional and physical support.
25. The Council issued a letter at the end of June responding to Miss X. It had reviewed all the evidence she had provided and considered her medical circumstances with input from the Senior Medical Assessor. It said the following:

Safety concerns

26. The Council did investigate the safety concerns by contacting the police. There was no evidence of threats after 2016. The Council said although the police have no safety concerns, it understood reasons for Miss X’s concerns. Miss X was then offered the other housing choice but she responded that of the two, she would prefer this one.

Far from support networks

27. Miss X cannot drive. She has three children under eight years old and is heavily pregnant with her fourth child. She says she needs her partner’s support.
28. When asked to provide details of anyone providing support previously, Miss X did not mention her partner, mother or sister. The Council noted the distance between her family, partner and new accommodation, but said it saw no reason that this would impact any support they give her or cause it to end. It said there was no reason her partner could not move closer to her or move in with her.

Medical needs

29. The Council accepted that Miss X has a history of mental health problems, but said the evidence provided did not confirm the existence of recurring symptoms.
30. Miss X responded in July and the Council considered her points and responded in August. It said even though she is heavily pregnant and worried about what will happen to her children when she goes into labour, the hospital have a protocol for this, and organisations nearby would provide support after the birth of the baby.
31. Miss X was unhappy with the response from the Council so she brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

32. The Council responded to every part of Miss X’s review request giving its reasons.
33. The Council considered the information provided by Miss X about her medical conditions, mental health, safety concerns and about her support network. It has set out why it considered the accommodation offered was suitable for her with regard to these issues.
34. The Council considered all factors in paragraph 15 above and there is no fault in the way it has done this so I cannot question its decision.
35. I appreciate Miss X will be disappointed, however the Ombudsman’s role is to look at the decision making process rather than the decision itself. We look at whether there was any fault in the process. If the law, policies and procedures were all followed correctly, we cannot find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

I do not find fault with the Council for offering Miss X accommodation out of borough.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman