The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end its housing duty to Miss X. That is because it was reasonable for Miss X to use her legal right of appeal to court.
The complaint
Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to end its housing duty to her after she refused an offer of accommodation. She said the Council then failed to evict her from her temporary accommodation which had resulted in uncertainty as to how long she could remain there. She is also unhappy the Council has removed her from the Housing Register.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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.
Miss X had been living in temporary accommodation provided by the Council since 2017. She said that accommodation got a mouse infestation in March 2021.
The Council subsequently offered Miss X a 24-month, fixed term private rental. Miss X refused that offer of accommodation and the Council ended its housing duty to her. Miss X asked the Council to review that decision. It did and wrote to her in October 2021. It upheld its original decision. It set out Miss X’s appeal rights to the court.
We will not exercise our discretion to investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its housing duty to her. It was reasonable for Miss X to have appealed the Council’s decision to the court if she thought it was wrong on a point of law.
The Council has told Miss X she can remain in her temporary accommodation until she receives the court order. Although Miss X states this has caused her uncertainty, my view is it has not caused Miss X a significant injustice as she has been able to stay in the temporary accommodation, seven months after the Council ended its housing duty to her.
The Council removed Miss X from the housing register in line with its allocation policy. Although Miss X disagrees with this decision, we will not investigate it further as there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it was made.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it was reasonable for her to use her legal right of appeal to court.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman