London Borough of Lambeth (25 020 004)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of Miss X’s temporary accommodation. The Council agreed to remedy the uncertainty caused by a delay in considering Miss X’s review request. This removes the need to investigate the delay. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to have appealed to the county court against the Council’s decision that her temporary accommodation was suitable.
The complaint
- Miss X complains that the Council placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation which is too far away from her support network and medical services. Miss X says that as a result her child’s health and her mental health have suffered.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
- We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Miss X made a homelessness application to the Council. The Council subsequently accepted the main housing duty and placed Miss X in temporary accommodation. Some months later, Miss X contacted the Council as she considered her temporary accommodation was unsuitable as it was too far from her support network and medical services.
- Miss X asked a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation. The Council considered Miss X’s review request but decided that her accommodation was suitable.
- We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. The Council’s suitability decision letter explained Miss X had a right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. Miss X may have been able to appeal to the county court on a point of law if she considered the Council had not properly considered the impact of the location of her temporary accommodation on her circumstances. It was open to Miss X to seek advice from advice agencies about how to appeal. So, it is reasonable to expect Miss X to have appealed to the county court.
- But if we were to investigate how the Council considered Miss X’s review request, it is likely we could find fault causing injustice to Miss X. This is because the Council should have taken no longer than eight weeks to consider Miss X’s review request. The Council took three months longer than it should have done. This delay will have caused uncertainty to Miss X. We therefore asked the Council to remedy Miss X’s injustice.
Agreed Action
- To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to send a written apology to Miss X to acknowledge the uncertainty caused by its delay in considering her review request. The Council should take this action within one month of my final decision. When making the apology, the Council should consider our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effective to remedy injustice.
Final decision
- We have partly upheld this complaint. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X for the uncertainty caused by the delay in dealing with her request for a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation which removes the need to investigate the delay. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the suitability of her temporary accommodation as it is reasonable to expect her to appeal to the county court.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman