Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about wrongful eviction and the suitability of temporary accommodation. This is because the injustice has already been remedied through the council’s complaint process, and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal the suitability of his temporary accommodation to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly evicted him from his temporary accommodation and housed him in unsuitable temporary accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
7. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
8. Mr X was residing in temporary accommodation. He received an offer from the Council for alternative temporary accommodation. The Council sent Mr X the incorrect offer letter for the new accommodation, failing to advise refusing the offer would result in a discharge of duty and failing to advise him of his review rights.
9. The Council sent Mr X a further letter advising his current temporary accommodation was due to end. The wrong letter was sent, again meaning his rights were not explained.
10. Mr X felt the new temporary accommodation offer was unsuitable and refused the offer. He had not been advised he could request a suitability review or that refusing the offer would result in a discharge of duty.
11. Mr X was then evicted from his temporary accommodation. Mr X spent one night without accommodation before the Council housed him in a hotel. After eight nights, Mr X was then housed in the temporary accommodation he had previously been offered.
12. Mr X complains the Council wrongfully evicted him and then housed him in unsuitable accommodation.
13. The Council have recognised sending the wrong offer letter was fault and recognised Mr X should not have been evicted. The Council have apologised to Mr X and provide him with a financial remedy of £505. This includes £205 reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses, as well a £150 remedy for the period when Mr X was without suitable accommodation, and a £150 remedy to reflect the impact on Mr X’s physical and mental health.
14. Where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation, we may recommend the Council makes a symbolic payment to acknowledge their distress, hardship and inconvenience. We usually recommend a payment of between £150 and £350 per month. Here, Mr X was without accommodation for one night and then housed in a hotel for eight nights. The financial remedy offered by the Council is therefore in line with our recommendations.
15. The Council have also carried out a suitability review of Mr X’s temporary accommodation and determined it is suitable for him. The Council advised him of his right to appeal to the County Court if he disagrees with this decision on a point of law.
16. If Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision that the temporary accommodation is suitable for him, it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to the County Court.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the injustice has already been remedied through the council’s complaint process, and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal the suitability of his temporary accommodation to the County Court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman