Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s homelessness and the condition of his temporary accommodation. On the homelessness decision, Mr X could reasonably have used his court appeal right and could reasonably have complained to us sooner. It is also unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now about the relevant points. The law prevents us considering Mr X’s eviction. The complaint about conditions in the property is late, it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now about some of the events and it is unlikely we would fault the Council for disrepair after it ended its duty to house Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the condition of his homelessness temporary accommodation and about the Council evicting him from there.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
7. 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Mr X’s complaint to us expresses dissatisfaction about the condition of the property he lived in. I must consider that in the context of the Council arranging the accommodation for Mr X and later removing him. The Council arranged the property as temporary accommodation when it owed Mr X a homelessness duty. The Council later ended that duty. After that, it got a court order requiring Mr X to leave and enforcement agents removed Mr X from the property. I shall deal with each of those points.

The Council ending its homelessness duty to Mr X

11. Mr X wants the Council to accept a duty to house him again. The Council ended its homelessness duty to Mr X in 2022, saying he had stopped occupying the property as his only or main home.
12. Mr X had, and used, the right to have the Council review that decision at the time. The review decision upheld the ending of the homelessness duty and told Mr X he had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law within 21 days.
13. Whether Mr X had voluntarily stopped occupying the property was a point of law. So the restriction in paragraph 4 applies. I have seen no evidence Mr X appealed to the court when he had that right. The law expressly provides this route for challenging such decisions, so we 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. There might be a potential cost to court action, but that is not in itself automatically a reason to consider court action unreasonable, and applicants can get help with court costs if they are eligible. I note Mr X has mental health difficulties. I appreciate that might have caused some difficulty. Nevertheless, Mr X had been able to ask the Council to review the homelessness decision. He could have sought help with taking court action, for example from an advice agency, solicitor or law centre. He could have asked the court to make any reasonable adjustments needed because of his mental health problems. For these reasons, I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to go to court.
14. Even if the points in paragraphs 12 and 13 did not apply, Mr X’s complaint about the Council ending its homelessness duty is late. The decision was in January 2022, the review decision in May 2022 and Mr X complained to us in April 2024. The restriction in paragraph 5 applies. While I appreciate Mr X’s mental health problems might have made it difficult to pursue matters as quickly as for someone without such problems, I am not persuaded that explains such a long delay coming to us. Moreover, even if there was a good reason for the delay, it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now, on balance, about events in 2021 and 2022 that led to the homelessness decision.
15. For these reasons, we shall not investigate the homelessness decision or recommend the Council accept a duty to house Mr X now.

Mr X’s eviction

16. Mr X wants the Council to retract the eviction. A court decided Mr X should be evicted. So the restriction in paragraph 3 prevent us considering that decision, or how the Council started court action, or the handling of the court action.

Conditions in the property

17. Mr X says the property was in poor condition, so he spent some time away from there. I note he reported a leak in March 2020, which the Council says was repaired at the time. Mr X says problems continued until he left in 2023.
18. Mr X’s legal right to live in the property ended in January 2022 when the Council ended its homelessness duty. So arguably the Council had no duty after then to Mr X in terms of the condition of the property where he had remained after the Council’s duty to house him had ended. Therefore an investigation would be unlikely to fault the Council after January 2022.
19. Also, the restriction in paragraph 5 applies to most of the period from 2020 to 2023, apart from a few months in 2023 that were fewer than 12 months before Mr X’s complaint to us. For the reasons given above, I consider Mr X could have complained to us much sooner about those matters. Further, even if that was not the case, any investigation now would be unlikely to reach a clear enough view, on the balance of probabilities, about what the Council knew or should have known, or what the Council did or should have done, about events so long ago.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. On the homelessness decision, Mr X could reasonably have used his court appeal right and could reasonably have complained to us sooner. It is also unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now about the relevant points. The law prevents us considering the eviction. Regarding conditions in the property, the complaint is late, it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now about some of the events and it is unlikely we would fault the Council for disrepair after its duty to house Mr X ended.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman