Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to offer Miss X a two-bedroom property instead of a three-bedroom property. This is because it was reasonable to expect Miss X to use her statutory review rights.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to offer her a two-bedroom property instead of a three-bedroom property.
2. She also complains about the Council’s decision to place her in Band C on its housing register.
3. Miss X says she would like to be offered a property with three bedrooms.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 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))
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether they have accepted the offer or not.
9. The Council offered Miss X a two-bedroom property to discharge its homelessness duty towards her. It noted her dissatisfaction with its decision and pointed her to the statutory review procedure for further consideration. It said it would reconsider the banding issue after the review outcome.
10. I have no information on whether Miss X took up her right to an internal appeal. If she did and the Council upheld its decision she could have appealed to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 202, 204). As Miss X says her medical evidence has not been considered by the Council, she could have raised this with the court.
11. The law provides for an internal Council review, and court, as the mechanisms to challenge such decisions, so we normally expect applicants to use these.
12. We will not investigate. I have seen no information to indicate it was not reasonable to expect Miss to appeal to the Council and thereafter to the court, as appropriate. She could have sought advice from a solicitor, law centre or a homelessness advice charity, like Shelter. The court can make a binding decision and overturn the Council's decision, unlike the Ombudsman.
13. For these reasons, I consider it was reasonable to expect Miss X to have used her statutory review rights.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it was reasonable to expect her to use her review remedy the law provides for her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman