Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s homelessness. The Council properly reached its decision that Miss X’s temporary accommodation is suitable. There are not good enough reasons to investigate other points.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her family’s homelessness. She says this resulted in her family having temporary accommodation (TA) she considers unsuitable, it was stressful and affected her mental health. Miss X wants the Council to accept fault and to provide accommodation in Newham.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Suitability of Miss X’s temporary accommodation

7. Miss X used her right to ask the Council to review the suitability of her TA. The Council’s review decided the TA was suitable. Miss X then had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law within 21 days. Miss X states she did not go to court because she could not afford court action herself and was not able find free legal help despite trying repeatedly. In the circumstances, I have exercised the Ombudsman’s discretion as described in paragraph 2 and I have considered the Council’s review decision.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We begin by considering how the Council reached its decision. If we conclude the Council reached its decision properly, we cannot criticise that decision, as paragraph 4 described.
9. The Council’s review decision referred to the relevant law, government guidance, and Council policy. It also took account of Miss X’s arguments that her TA was unsuitable. The issue was mainly the TA being outside the Council’s area, some distance from where Miss X had previously lived, and how this affected Miss X’s child getting to and from school, Miss X getting to and from work and the distance from Miss X’s support network. The Council’s review decision referred to those points. It cited the travelling times involved and other factors the Council had to take into account. The review decision gave reasons for concluding the TA was suitable even if it was not ideal and even if the distance from school and work, and the possibility of changing school, would have some impact on Miss X and her family.
10. The evidence suggests the Council took account of the relevant factors. The points in the review decision were points the Council was entitled to make. Overall, the Council appears to have reached its decision properly. So any investigation is unlikely to find fault by the Council, as paragraph 4 explained, albeit Miss X is entitled to disagree with the Council’s decision.

Other points about the handling of Miss X’s homelessness

11. Miss X also expresses dissatisfaction with how the Council dealt with her, including allegedly inadequate communications and explanations about the Council’s duty to her, whether the Council would move her to different TA back in its area and arrangements for rent payment at the TA. Those points seem peripheral to Miss X’s main concern about being accommodated away from Newham. I do not consider any possible fault on those points will have caused Miss X significant enough injustice or raised points of significant enough public interest to justify investigating those points when we are not investigating the TA suitability point. I note an arrangement has now been made to pay off the rent arrears in instalments. We cannot reasonably achieve more on that point.
12. Miss X says the Council’s handling of her homelessness has affected her mental health and she has needed therapy. This is really a claim of personal injury. The courts can consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to this point. The possible cost of court action does not in itself automatically mean the Ombudsman should investigate instead. Miss X could seek help with legal costs. In doing so for a personal injury claim she would not be under the same time pressure as for the homelessness appeal. Also, Miss X could ask for her costs if her court action succeeded. Liability for personal injury is not straightforward legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide this. So it would be reasonable for Miss X to go to court for a decision on this point.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman