Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council ending the main housing duty as it is reasonable to expect Ms X to have continued with a review of the decision. We will not investigate the Council’s decision that Ms X was not on the housing register as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council:

• Wrongly discharged the main housing duty while she was waiting for the Council to deal with her request for a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation.
• Wrongly withdrew her request for a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation.
• Denied her access to the housing register.

2. Ms X says that, as a result, she was forced to live in unsuitable accommodation which disrupted contact with her children and prevented her from moving into suitable accommodation which has caused. Ms X also considers the Council’s action have caused significant distress and uncertainty to her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement,
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal,
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X made a homelessness application to the Council. The Council accepted the main housing duty and provided temporary accommodation to her. Ms X requested a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation. The Council then ended the main housing duty to Ms X as it considered she had voluntarily left her temporary accommodation.
7. Ms X contacted the Council to complain about it ending the main housing duty before considering the suitability of the temporary accommodation. The Council told Ms X that it would convert her suitability review request to a review of the Council’s decision to end the main housing duty. Ms X was unhappy with this decision so she withdrew her permission for the Council to deal with the review.
8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end the main housing duty. Ms X had the right to seek a review of the Council’s decision. The review would have considered if the Council was right to end the main housing duty. This is likely to have included whether the Council could end the duty before considering her suitability review request. The Council intended to carry out a review of its decision, so it is reasonable expect Ms X to have continued with the review. Ms X would also have had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law if her review request had been unsuccessful.
9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council converting her suitability review request to a review of its decision to end the main housing duty. It is likely that the Council’s review of its decision to end the main housing duty would have considered the suitability of the temporary accommodation when deciding if its reasons for ending the main housing duty were valid. So, any fault by the Council would not have caused significant enough injustice to Ms X to justify an investigation of her complaint.
10. Ms X complained to the Council that it had removed her from the housing register. We will not investigate this aspect of Ms X’s complaint. The Council explained to Ms X that she needed to make a housing register application in response to her complaint. The Council’s letter telling Ms X that it had accepted the main housing duty also said that she should register an application if she was not already on the housing register. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating this aspect of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman