Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council duty. It was reasonable for Miss X to appeal a suitability review outcome to the County Court. It was reasonable for her to ask for a review of the permanent final offer of accommodation and the decision to discharge the homelessness duty and end her temporary accommodation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council offering her unsuitable accommodation under its homelessness duty. Her solicitors submitted a homelessness review request but this was not upheld by the Council. She says the Council tried to coerce her into accepting a final offer of accommodation by informing her that if she refused it she may be left without accommodation. She says the Council then ended its homelessness duty and terminated her temporary accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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
• 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))

4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X says the Council offered her in unsuitable accommodation as a final offer under its homelessness duty. She says she could not accept the accommodation which was social housing because it did not meet her children’s needs but the Council tried to force her to accept it by informing that she could face having no accommodation if she refused and it ended its Main Housing duty.
8. The Council says that it was acting in Miss X’s interests and in keeping with the guidance on homelessness to give her advice that refusal of a suitable offer could result in it ending the duty and its provision of temporary accommodation. It advised her to accept the offer and then seek a review under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 part 7. In that case if the review was upheld she would be eligible for further offers and, if not, she could pursue an appeal under s.204.
9. Miss X refused the offer and the Council subsequently ended its duty and her temporary accommodation. It referred Miss X to social services because there were safeguarding concerns about her children having no accommodation under the Children Act 1989. However, no safeguarding concerns were identified because she had an offer of suitable housing available at the time. She then complained to us.
10. There is no fault in the procedure which the Council has followed in making an offer and then ending its homelessness duty. It was reasonable for Miss X to accept the offer and then challenge its suitability by way of a s.202 review and appeal if necessary. She was legally represented and she could have followed the procedure without being left without accommodation.
11. The Council’s response to her first suitability review included a data breach in which Miss X’s personal data was released to a third party. The Council referred itself to the information Commissioner (ICO) as required under the UK GDPR regulations and it gave Miss X details of the Information Commissioner’s contact address if she wished to complain. We will not investigate this aspect of her complaint because the ICO is the body which is responsible for data protection issues and its investigations was ongoing when she complained to us.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council duty. It was reasonable for Miss X to appeal a suitability review outcome to the County Court. It was reasonable for her to ask for a review the permanent final offer of accommodation and the decision to discharge the homelessness duty and end her temporary accommodation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman