Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application and its decision that Miss X was intentionally homeless. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision about interim accommodation. It was reasonable for Miss X to use the review/appeals procedure offered by the homelessness legislation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s provision of unsuitable temporary accommodation whilst it was considering her homelessness application. She also complained about the decision that she was intentionally homeless.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says the Council made her an offer of emergency accommodation when she presented as homeless which was unsuitable for her needs due to her medical circumstances. She refused the accommodation and the Council subsequently found that she was intentionally homeless from her previous accommodation with her mother.
6. The Council says that she was accepted under the relief homelessness duty and was offered interim accommodation which was in a shared location. This is not unusual for applicants seeking emergency accommodation whilst the homeless application is processed. The Council did not offer her temporary accommodation because it ended the duty before the main housing duty was accepted.
7. There is no evidence to suggest that the Council failed to fully consider the information which she provided with her homeless application. Miss X had a right to challenge the Council’s homelessness decision by way of a review under s.202 for the Housing Act 1996 Part 7. She asked for a review in May and the decision was issued in July. The Council sent her a ‘minded to’ pre-decision review letter which explained the reasoning for its view. Miss X had an opportunity to submit her response to the findings prior to the issue of the final review decision.
8. When the Council issues its final review decision Miss X will have a right to appeal any negative decision to the County Court under s.204 of the legislation. We cannot overturn a council’s decision on a homelessness application and it is reasonable for her to seek a remedy in the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application and its decision that Miss X was intentionally homeless. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision about interim accommodation. It was reasonable for Miss X to use the review/appeals procedure offered by the homelessness legislation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman