Summary: We will use our discretion not to investigate this complaint about temporary accommodation because the complainant could have used her appeal rights.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, says the Council offered temporary accommodation which was unsuitable for health reasons. She also says there were steep steps, mould and vermin. Ms X wants the Council to provide suitable accommodation, reimburse her travel costs, apologise and provide a single point of contact.

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 an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the correspondence about the accommodation and a video of the flat. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council accepted Ms X as homeless. It had a duty to provide suitable accommodation. The Council offered Ms X a flat. Ms X accepted it but expressed reservations; she said it was unsuitable due to her daughter’s medical needs. Ms X also reported disrepair and raised other concerns.
6. The Council says it tried to inspect the property after Ms X reported disrepair but could not contact Ms X to gain access. The Council explained why it had decided the property was suitable. It told Ms X she could ask for a suitability review. It explained no disrepair had been identified when it did the pre-offer inspection.
7. Ms X asked for a suitability review. She also returned the keys and left the flat. She says the property posed such a risk to her family’s health that she could not stay. The Council ended its homelessness duty because Ms X left the property. This meant the Council had no further duty to provide Ms X with accommodation.
8. Ms X asked for a review. The Council reviewed the suitability decision and the discharge of duty decision. The Council decided, on review, that the property was suitable and the decision to end the duty was correct. The Council said Ms X had 21 days to appeal to the court on a point of law. The courts are the final stage in the process to challenge homelessness decisions.
9. We will not investigate this complaint because Ms X could have appealed to the court about either issue. The court could have decided if the property was suitable and whether the Council was correct to discharge the duty. These are not decisions we can make. I can, however, consider if the Council followed the correct process and I see nothing to suggest we need to start an investigation. The Council offered a property, notified Ms X of her review rights, and carried out a review which was detailed and thorough. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decisions but that is a matter she could have addressed in court.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because Ms X could have appealed to the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman