The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of temporary accommodation outside the area. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a review of the decision and to challenge it in the courts if this was unsuccessful.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to place him in temporary accommodation outside the borough when he submitted a homeless application. He says it failed to properly consider his access to medical and social services support and that he would have to travel to seek support in the locality.
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: 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 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.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says he was placed in temporary accommodation outside the borough when he submitted a homeless application. He says the Council failed to properly consider his medical needs and his application to social services for support. Mr X complained about the decision but the Council told him he did not meet the criteria for additional priority for local temporary accommodation. It informed him that he could receive medical and social support in his new location and did not have specific needs which could only be provided in the Council’s area.
The Council advised Mr X that when his homeless investigation was decided he had a right to seek an internal review of suitability and if this was unsuccessful, he would have further rights to appeal to the courts.
Following his complaint to us, the Council told Mr X that its decision on his homeless application was that he was intentionally homeless and it no longer owed him a full housing duty. This means it will cancel his existing temporary accommodation. Homeless decisions also carry a right of review and Mr X informed the Council that his legal advisor would be pursuing this. If the review does not change the decision, then he can appeal to the County Court on a point of law within 21 days.
We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X has a remedy by way of a review and further rights of appeal to the courts.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of temporary accommodation outside the area. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a review of the decision and to challenge it in the courts if this was unsuccessful.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman