Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about because there is insufficient evidence of fault in relation to her eviction and the provision of alternative temporary accommodation. The Council is reviewing its subsequent decision that she is intentionally homeless and it is reasonable for her to exercise her rights of review and appeal.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council:
1. Only gave her two weeks to leave her accommodation;
2. Failed to provide appropriate support on the eviction day; and
3. Provided unsuitable temporary accommodation.

Since the complaint to us, the Council has:

4. decided she is intentionally homeless due to rent arrears, the amount of which Ms X disputes, and given her notice to leave the temporary accommodation; and
5. offered a repayment plan, which would involve deductions from Ms X’s benefits, which she says would add to her financial hardship.
4. Ms X said that, as a result of Council failings she had to share one bedroom with her children, and share kitchen and bathroom with other occupants. She also said the lack of support has caused anxiety and worry, which has triggered migraines and has affected the wellbeing of her children as well as herself.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Notice to leave property

7. Ms X complained the Council only gave her two weeks’ notice to leave her temporary accommodation at Address A. Ms X provided a Notice of Eviction dated 12 February 2024, with an eviction date of 5 March 2024.
8. We will not investigate this complaint further. It was the court that decided on the relevant notice period, and not the Council. We can only investigate actions by the Council.

Eviction day

9. Ms X said that, on the day of the eviction, no-one from the Council was there to tell the family where they were going. She waited an hour for someone to call her to tell her where she needed to go.
10. In its complaint response, the Council said an officer spoke to Ms X on the day of the eviction, answered the questions Ms X had, and ensure that alternative accommodation was available. It added that, due to a severe shortage of emergency accommodation, it was not always possible to place households into alternative accommodation until the day of the eviction.
11. We will not investigate this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Suitability of temporary accommodation

12. Ms X complained the alternative temporary accommodation at Address B was not suitable. This was because she had to share a bedroom with her children, and they had to share a kitchen and bathroom with other occupants.
13. She also told us Address B was too far from her workplace or the children’s school, due to the cost of transport and travelling time, and there was no private space or internet for the children to do their homework.
14. When Ms X asked for self-contained accommodation, the Council explained there was nothing available at the time. In its response to her complaint, it explained it was facing a temporary accommodation emergency, but that households in bed and breakfast accommodation were prioritised when suitable accommodation was identified.
15. As Address B was temporary accommodation, Ms X had a statutory right to a review of its suitability. I have decided it was not reasonable to expect her to use that right because the Council has since decided she is intentionally homeless and given her notice to vacate it. On that basis, we could consider her complaint.
16. There is a national shortage of affordable housing, and the situation is particularly acute in London. The law allows for families to be placed in accommodation with shared facilities for up to six weeks if there is no other accommodation available. Further, the courts have said that accommodation may be suitable for a short period of time, which would not be suitable in the longer term.
17. On balance, taking into account the information Ms X provided about Address B and the factors set out above, it is unlikely we would be able to conclude the alternative temporary accommodation at Address B was unsuitable for Ms X and her family. In addition, Ms X has since been given notice to leave Address B. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome by doing so.

Intentionally homeless decision

18. In May 2024, the Council decided Ms X was intentionally homeless due to the rent arrears that she had accrued at Address A and Address B. This decision carries a right of review, and the Council has confirmed it will carry out a review. Ms X can raise her concerns about the amount of the arrears as part of that review. If she is unhappy with the outcome of the review, she can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
19. We will not consider this complaint further because Ms X has review and appeal rights, and it is reasonable for her to exercise them.

Repayment plan

20. In its complaint response, the Council advised Ms X to consider a repayment plan for the rent arrears because otherwise the arrears would make it difficult for her to secure alternative accommodation. It also advised her to apply for a discretionary housing payment and discretionary council tax discounts to see if these could assist in reducing the arrears.
21. Ms X told us a repayment plan would mean deductions from her benefits which would add to her financial hardship.
22. The Council has offered advice about addressing the rent arrears, which Ms X is unhappy with. However, she has not made a formal complaint to the Council about this.
23. We will not consider this complaint further because the law says councils should have an opportunity to respond to complaints before we get involved.

Back to top

Final decision

24. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the complaint about the notice of eviction does not relate to an action by the Council, and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating the support given on the day of eviction or the suitability of the alternative temporary accommodation provided. Ms X has rights of review and appeal in relation to the intentionally homeless decision, which are reasonable for her to exercise. And we cannot consider the complaint about the repayment plan because the Council has not yet had an opportunity to address that.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman