Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to evict Miss X from temporary accommodation. Miss X could reasonably have used her right to go to court.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council wrongly evicted her and her child from temporary accommodation.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and references to Council correspondence.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says she was in hospital for a short period and emailed the Council to inform it. She then stayed at a friend’s house for a weekend to support her recovery. The Council conducted an inspection in her absence and decided she was not occupying the accommodation. The Council evicted Miss X as a result. Miss X appealed this decision but was rejected.
6. Miss X had the right of appeal to the court on a point of law if she was dissatisfied with the review of her decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 204) It is a point of law whether Miss X’s absence amounted to ceasing to occupy the temporary accommodation. So, the restriction in paragraph 2 applies.
7. The Council’s review decision letter told Miss X she had the right to take the matter to court. So, Miss X knew about her right to go to court.
8. Miss X asked for a review of the Council’s decision after her hospital treatment. This suggests she was also well enough to use her right to go to court after the review.
9. Miss X was in London, where there is access to housing advice organisations and legal advice on such matters. It is reasonable to say Miss X could have gained advice to help her appeal in court.
10. Miss X may have qualified for help with legal costs if she had a low income. If she had appealed successfully, she could have asked the court to reimburse the costs. So, the potential court costs did not, in themselves, make it unreasonable to expect Miss X to use her right to go to court.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it was reasonable to expect her to use her right to go to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman