Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a homelessness review of suitability. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council undertaking a review of suitability of accommodation which she refused when she was under the Council’s homelessness duty. She says the review was started without her request and that she withdrew it. When she asked for it to be re-instated the Council told her this was not possible and it then told her it was 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 was living in temporary accommodation provided under the Council’s homelessness when she made a successful bid on a flat under the choice-based lettings scheme. The Council arranged for her to view and sign the tenancy agreement but when she saw the location of the accommodation she rejected it as being unsuitable on its layout and location due to her mental health medical requirements.
6. Miss X wrote to the Council and asked it to allow her to remain on the housing register without being penalised. The Council took this request as a rejection of the offer and a challenge to the suitability of the accommodation. Miss X later said she did not intend to ask for a review.
7. The Council was aware of Miss X having Dyslexia and other processing vulnerabilities and believes she was exercising her right to a review and that it should acknowledge her request with the required 21 days. Having read the letter from Miss X I do not consider the Council acted unreasonably and was acting in her best interests.
8. Miss X did not challenge the Council’s acknowledgement of the review request until she later told the Council that she wished to withdraw her review. If she was aware of the review being undertaken then she could have queried this earlier. The Council ended the review at Miss X’s request but she subsequently asked that it be re-instated. The Council told her it could not do this because the original 21-day period for initiating a review had ended.
9. The Council sent Miss X a preliminary decision letter under s.193 of the Housing Act 1996 that it was discharging its homelessness duty. This gave her further opportunity to challenge the preliminary decision and that when issued the final decision would offer her further review rights to challenge it by way of a review.
10. There is no evidence that the decision was reviewed or appealed but Miss X was rehoused by the Council in the following month.
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. The Council followed Miss X’s requests about the review in her interests and she had opportunities to use the review /appeal procedure available under the legislation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a homelessness review of suitability. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman