Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled its housing duty to him and its assessment of his housing band. This is because he had the right to appeal to the county court and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have exercised that right. Also, any injustice Mr X may have suffered is not significant enough to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council ended its housing duty because he refused a property it offered to him. He says he refused it because it was too far from his workplace and his children’s school. He says the Council told him it has no housing duty towards him and eviction proceedings would commence, meaning he would need to vacate the property and make his own housing arrangements. Mr X also complains the Council made an error with his housing band. Mr X wants the Council to resolve his housing situation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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 and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council offered Mr X a property it considered was suitable and Mr X rejected it. He said it was too far from his children’s school and his work. He also had concerns around the affordability and stability of the rent. Because Mr X had rejected the offer, the Council told Mr X it was discharging its homelessness duty towards him.
9. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996. An independent reviewing officer reviewed the decision and the Council’s decision was upheld. The reviewing officer explained to Mr X the property offered to him was suitable and within a reasonable commutable distance to his children’s school and his workplace. The property was affordable as the housing element of Mr X’s Universal Credit would cover the rent. I am satisfied the Council followed the correct process and addressed Mr X’s concerns. Mr X had the right to appeal to the county court if he disagreed with the outcome of the review and it would have been reasonable for him to have exercised this right. Therefore, I will not investigate this part of his complaint.
10. Mr X complained the Council assigned him the wrong housing priority band. The Council told Mr X at first it awarded him the wrong band because it did not realise he did not meet the Council’s residency requirement. It apologised to Mr X and placed him into the correct band in line with its social housing policy. When Mr X met the residency requirement, the Council reassessed his housing band. It also accepted Mr X as a homelessness case and moved him into a higher priority band. Mr X did not miss any housing opportunities because of the Councils error. Therefore, any injustice Mr X may have suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had the right to appeal to the courts and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have exercised that right. Also, any injustice Mr X may have suffered is not significant enough to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman