Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation offered to a homeless applicant and its subsequent decision to discharge its homelessness duty. It was reasonable for Miss X to ask for a review of the suitability before she was evicted on two occasions. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation of the decision to discharge the homelessness duty.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council placing her in temporary accommodation which had strict curfews on access from the building. She says this led to her being evicted from two separate placements because she breached the licence conditions. She says this contributed to her being sectioned to a mental care hospital following her eviction and the Council discharging its homelessness duty.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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 she was placed in accommodation for single homeless applicants which had a curfew of 10:30pm. She says this was unreasonable and led to her suffering abuse from residents and also criminal activity outside the building.
6. The Council says that all residents in temporary accommodation building sign a licence to adhere to the conditions in order to minimise disturbance to other residents. It says Miss X breached the licence terms and assaulted another resident which led to her first eviction.
7. The second eviction also resulted from breaches of the licence and drug-related activity. Miss X was suffering from mental health problems at the time but she had capacity to understand the licence terms and to hold a tenancy which she was awaiting from her homeless application. Miss X was subsequently sectioned and placed in a mental health hospital.
8. The Council says it discharged its homelessness duty two months later when there was no confirmation of when she would require further accommodation which the mental health services have confirmed would have to be of a specialised nature. It has told us that if Miss X made a future homelessness application it would consider this at the time.
9. If Miss X believed the temporary accommodation provided by the Council at both locations was unsuitable she could have asked for a review of suitability under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996. However, as much similar accommodation used by councils has similar conditions it is unlikely it may have succeeded.
10. The Council discharged its homelessness duty because it was informed Miss X’s circumstances had change from when it accepted the duty and it could no longer apply her previous housing needs to her case. In theory she could have challenged the decision by review and appeal also but if she lacked mental capacity to do so this is unlikely to have happened. The Council says that if she makes a future application it will consider her under her new circumstances at the time.
11. 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

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation offered to a homeless applicant and its subsequent decision to discharge its homelessness duty. It was reasonable for Miss X to ask for a review of the suitability before she was evicted on two occasions. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation of the decision to discharge the homelessness duty.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman