The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision on the suitability of accommodation offered to her under its homelessness duty. It was reasonable for her to challenge the Council’s review decision by using the statutory appeals procedure available under the homelessness legislation.
The complaint
Ms X complained that the Council failed to properly assess the suitability of the private rented accommodation it offered her to discharge its homelessness Relief duty. She believes the Council should rehouse her in an alternative area and consider her history and mental health before making any new offers of accommodation. She would also like financial compensation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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
Ms X accepted an offer of private rented accommodation which ended the Council’s homelessness duty to her. Ms X requested a review of the suitability of this accommodation under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 Part 7 which the Council undertook. It found the accommodation to be suitable. In making its decision, the Council actively communicated with the police and Ms X’s landlord. The Council provided its decision in writing and explained its reasons for deciding the accommodation was suitable.
We acknowledge that the Council was delayed in issuing its decision (issued late by 1 day), but we do not consider this delay to constitute a significant injustice to Ms X. We do not find fault in the way the Council reached its review decision.
Ms X had a further right of appeal against the review decision under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996. This allows appeals to the County Court on a point of law. The Ombudsman cannot overturn a decision on a homelessness application and we would normally expect some to use the statutory review/appeals procedure available under the legislation
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision on the suitability of accommodation offered to her under its homelessness duty. It was reasonable for her to challenge the Council’s review decision by using the statutory appeals procedure available under the homelessness legislation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman