Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s homelessness decisions. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have used his court appeal rights.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide him with suitable accommodation. Mr X says his medical needs and also medical evidence has been ignored. Mr X says his health has worsened due to the unsuitable 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. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. A Council can end its homelessness duty by offering accommodation it considers suitable. Anyone who believes the Council’s offer is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the offer was unsuitable, the offer will not stand. If the review decides the offer was suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204).
5. Mr X says the property the Council provided was unsuitable for various reasons, including the fact he has to climb stairs and also as it is in a different borough from his support network and GP. Mr X used his right to request a review. The Council’s review decision letter upheld the decision that the offer was suitable and advised of the right to go to the county court on a point of law. Therefore the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to this part of the complaint.
6. Whether a particular property met the legal definition of suitability for a particular person is a point of law. The law expressly provides this route for disputes about the suitability of accommodation. So we normally expect people to use this route. The court could overturn the Council’s position and make a binding order if it sees fit. I appreciate Mr X has some ill health. However, Mr X was able to complain to the Council and to use his review right. I am satisfied Mr X could use his court appeal right, including by seeking help if he considered it necessary, for example from solicitors, a law centre, advice agency or housing organisation. There is a possible cost implication with court action. However, help with legal costs might be available and Mr X could seek his costs if a court appeal succeeded. Also, the potential cost of court action is not in itself automatically a reason for the Ombudsman to investigate instead. Overall, I consider it was reasonable in the circumstances to expect Mr X to have used his court appeal right when he had that right.
7. Mr X says the unsuitable property is adversely affecting his health and he would like compensation. The alleged effect on Mr X’s health is really a claim of personal injury. The courts can consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to this point too. The existence of, liability for, and compensation for personal injury are not straightforward matters legally. The Ombudsman cannot reasonably decide those points. Nor is it the Ombudsman’s role to award compensation in the way the courts can. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide this. So, it would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court if he wants a decision and compensation about this point.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it was reasonable to expect Mr X to have used his court appeal rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman