Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its housing duty because it is reasonable for Miss X to use her right of appeal.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council ended its housing duty after she refused an offer of temporary accommodation. Miss X says the Council did not take her needs into account and the accommodation offered was not suitable. She also complains that the Council did not provide accommodation under its relief duty when she became homeless, and the Council delayed responding to her request for support to obtain private accommodation.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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 Miss X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X applied to the Council for homelessness relief and received a housing needs assessment. The Council recognised Miss X’s medical needs and there were several areas that would not be suitable for her to live. The Council accepted its relief duty, however it did not provide accommodation. At the time, Miss X advised the Council that she was staying temporarily with a family member and preferred to remain there, rather than move further from the area.
8. The authority is under an immediate duty to secure interim accommodation for an applicant whilst it carries out an assessment if there is reason to believe they may be eligible, homeless and in priority need. It is legitimate for the authority to ask an applicant if they would prefer to make their own alternative arrangements while it assesses their case. In this instance, Miss X had alternative accommodation with a family member. There is not enough evidence that the Council's decision to not provide interim accommodation caused significant injustice to Miss X. I will therefore not investigate this complaint.
9. After 56 days the relief duty ended, and the Council wrote to Miss X to confirm that main housing duty had been accepted. The Council subsequently offered Miss X temporary accommodation, but Miss X refused, saying it was too far from the area and her support network. As a result of her refusal the Council ended its main housing duty.
10. Miss X requested a review of this decision. The Council considered the circumstances, including Miss X’s needs and the travelling distance. The outcome of the review was to uphold the Council’s decision to end the main housing duty.
11. The Council advised Miss X of her right to appeal its decision in court. It was reasonable for Miss X to exercise her right to appeal and therefore I will not investigate this complaint.
12. Miss X says that during this time she contacted the Council asking how to access financial support for private accommodation. There was a delay of 40 days in the Council responding to Miss X’s query, which she says prevented her from obtaining a property. In response to my enquiries the Council has acknowledged the delay and offered an apology to Miss X. Whilst there is fault in the delay, there is not enough evidence of significant injustice to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is reasonable for Miss X to use her right of appeal to county court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman