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 after she refused an offer of accommodation. This is because the woman had statutory review and appeal rights she could have used to dispute the Council’s decision.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or that it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal. (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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information Miss X provided with her complaint. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Housing Act 1996 (“the Act”) says that where someone is homeless and eligible for assistance, councils have a legal duty to try and relieve their homelessness (the ‘relief duty’).
The Act also 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 to fulfil a housing duty, and about ending the relief duty. Review requests normally must be made within 21 days of the applicant receiving the decision letter. If an applicant wants to dispute a negative review decision, they can appeal to the county court if there is a point of law at issue.
Miss X applied to the Council as homeless and it accepted it owed her a relief duty.
Later on the Council offered Miss X a property in a location around 150 miles from London, which it considered was suitable for her family’s needs. This was a ‘final accommodation offer’ under the Act, which meant the Council’s duty to house Miss X would end whether or not she accepted the property.
Miss X turned down the offer because of her health issues and lack of support in the new area, which she was not familiar with. The Council then ended its relief duty in her case and said it could no longer offer her any help in finding accommodation. The Council’s end of duty letter informed Miss X of her right to a have a review of its decision and the offer of accommodation.
However I have decided that we should not investigate Miss X’s complaint.
First, Miss X had a legal right to a review by the Council concerning its decision to end its relief duty and about the suitability of the offered property, and I see no reason why she should not be expected to have asked for a review at the time.
If Miss X did not make an on-time review request she is now out of time to ask for one by right. However, the Council does have discretion to consider a late request.
Second, the law says we usually cannot investigate a complaint where someone could take the matter to court. If Miss X had a review and received a negative decision, she would then have had a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law. I see no reason not to expect Miss X to have used her court appeal rights if that had proved necessary.
In addition, unlike the courts, we have no powers to make rulings on points of law or overturn homelessness decisions. So I do not see we could achieve the outcome Miss X wants which is for the Council to look at its decision again and offer her a property in the London area.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty in her case after she refused an offer of accommodation. This is because Miss X had review and potential court appeal rights she could use to challenge the Council’s decision in her case.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman