The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council unreasonably ended its homelessness duty in a woman’s case and now wants to evict her from her temporary accommodation. This is mainly because the woman had a right of appeal to court concerning the Council’s decision. In addition, she has complained late.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an investigation if, for example, we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The law says we normally cannot 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) In addition, we normally cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information Mrs C provided with her complaint and her representative’s comments on the telephone. I also gave Mrs C the chance to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view. In addition I took account of information from the Council about Mrs C’s housing case.
My assessment
I have decided that we will not start an investigation of Mrs C’s complaint.
The Housing Act 1996 gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their homelessness application. This includes decisions about the suitability of accommodation they are offered and about ending the housing duty in their case. If an applicant wants to dispute a negative review decision, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
In December 2019 the Council offered Mrs C a social housing flat to meet its homelessness duty in her case. Mrs C refused the offer and, as a result, the Council ended its housing duty in January 2020. Mrs C asked for a review about the suitability of the offered property. But after a review later the same month, the Council upheld its decision that the flat was suitable. The review decision letter said that Mrs C had 21 days to appeal to the county court. But Mrs C did not use her right of appeal.
I see no reason why Mrs C should not be expected to have made an appeal if she felt the Council’s review decision was wrong in law. Therefore I consider the restriction on our jurisdiction to investigate complaints, which I refer to in paragraph 3 above, applies in her case.
Mrs C only asked for a review after she had turned down the offer. Mrs C suggested that the Council had not informed her she could accept the offer and still have a review. But the letters the Council sent Mrs C about the offer included clear advice that it was possible to accept a property and have a review about suitability afterwards. So I do not see sign of fault by the Council in this respect.
But anyway I also consider Mrs C’s complaints about these matters are late because she did not come to us until two years after she became aware of the issues. I see no reason why Mrs C could not have complained to us sooner. So I consider the restriction I refer to in paragraph 4 also applies in her case.
In January 2020 the Council told the managing agent of Mrs C’s temporary accommodation that it was ending its housing duty in her case. But the agent did not take any action to evict Mrs C until 2021. The court rejected the possession claim at that time. However the agent recently served another Notice to Quit.
Mrs C is upset that she now faces eviction from her temporary accommodation. Clearly the Council has delayed in pursuing an eviction. But even if the Council has been at fault in this respect I do not see we could say Mrs C had suffered a significant injustice as a result. In particular, she has been able to stay in her temporary accommodation for two years after the Council ended its housing duty.
Mrs C is also unhappy she has been unable to continue bidding for other social housing properties since the Council ended its duty. But it appears the Council has acted in line with its Allocations Policy in this regard. In particular, the Policy says Housing Register applicants in temporary accommodation who refuse a suitable offer of a property will lose their priority for housing. So I do not see we would have grounds to fault the Council for removing Mrs C’s bidding priority.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its housing duty in her case and seek her eviction from temporary accommodation. This is mainly because Mrs C had a right of appeal to court she could have used to challenge the Council’s decision about her homelessness and, anyway, she has complained late about many of the issues in her case.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman