The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing. Miss X could reasonably have used her right to go to court if she was dissatisfied with an offer of housing to end her homelessness. The Council has now agreed Miss X needs an extra bedroom and has allowed her onto its housing register, resolving that part of the complaint. The Council is still dealing with the question of Miss X’s priority on the register, so we will not investigate that currently.
The complaint
Miss X complained the Council’s offer of her current home was unsuitable and that, after she accepted the offer and moved in, the Council would not let her join its housing register for a larger property. She said this resulted in inadequate living conditions, causing stress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. 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 the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X’s current home has two bedrooms. She wants a three-bedroom property because of her family’s medical circumstances.
Miss X says her current home did not suit her needs when the Council offered it to her. The Council offered the current home to resolve Miss X’s homelessness. If Miss X considered it unsuitable, she had the right to ask the Council to review the suitability of the offer and, if the review decision was the same, Miss X would then have had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to this point. The law expressly provides that route for dealing with disagreements about the suitability of housing to resolve homelessness. It would have been reasonable for Miss X to use that right if she thought the offer unsuitable because of the number of bedrooms or any other reason.
When Miss X complained to us, she was unhappy the Council would not agree her family needed an extra bedroom, so it would not let her join its housing register. We asked the Council to deal with that complaint. The Council, after receiving more information, decided Miss X is eligible for another bedroom. It has allowed her to join its housing register and will consider her for three-bedroom properties. Therefore we cannot achieve more on this point.
Miss X’s housing application currently has Band 2 priority. Miss X argues it should have Band 1 priority. In September 2022 Miss X asked the Council to review her priority. She is currently awaiting the Council’s review decision. The Council should have a reasonable opportunity to deal with this matter first. That means the Ombudsman will not become involved with this point at the moment, as the Council is still dealing with it. If Miss X remains dissatisfied once she has the Council’s review decision, she can bring this point back to the Ombudsman.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because: Miss X could reasonably have used her court appeal right about the homelessness decision; the Council has resolved the point about the number of bedrooms; and we will allow the Council to continue its review of Miss X’s banding priority.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman