Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Miss X to ask for reviews of the decisions on intentionality and suitability of the temporary accommodation provided. She will have a further right of appeal on any undecided reviews which are negative.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s delay in making a homelessness decision while she was in temporary accommodation. She says the accommodation was unsuitable for her and her child because it is a hostel and she was subsequently told she was intentionally homeless and would have to give up her accommodation. She also says she was not given advice about how to apply for housing and bid on vacancies which delayed her housing application.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says the Council delayed issuing a homelessness decision for months after she was placed in temporary accommodation, exceeding the recommended 56 days for the Relief duty. The Council says it took longer than 56 days but it proved her with temporary accommodation while enquires into her homelessness case were ongoing.
6. The Council then determined her application and decided that she was intentionally homeless and told her in its decision letter that she would have to leave the temporary accommodation. Miss X asked the Council to review the decision and complained to us.
7. The Council decided the review in September and overturned the original intentional decision. It cancelled the requirement to leave the accommodation. Miss X also asked the Council to review the suitability of her temporary accommodation because it is in a hostel with a shared bathroom which she says is unsuitable for her family.
8. The review had not been determined when she complained to us and it is due to be decided in the coming weeks. If the review is unsuccessful she will have a right to appeal the decision to the County Court. She was represented when she made her review request and it is reasonable for her to seek such a remedy. If the review is successful the Council will be required to find alternative temporary accommodation which is suitable.
9. The Council gave Miss X sufficient advice in its personalised housing plan to make an application to the Housing register when she first applied as homeless and there was no fault in this decision.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Miss X to ask for reviews of the decisions on intentionality and suitability of the temporary accommodation provided. She will have a further right of appeal on any undecided reviews which are negative.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman