London Borough of Hounslow (23 016 106)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s homelessness decisions. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to have used her review and court appeal rights.
The complaint
- Miss X complains the Council left her in unsafe temporary accommodation for two years, then offered her an unsuitable property, then wrongly ended its homelessness duty because the Council said she had refused the offer.
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)
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
- A Council can end its homelessness duty by offering accommodation it considers suitable. Anyone who believes the Council’s offer is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the offer was unsuitable, the offer will not stand. If the review decides the offer was suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
- Miss X says the property the Council offered was unsuitable for various reasons, including because it was near her previous home where she had experienced domestic abuse, it was isolated from services she uses and its location did not meet her medical needs. Miss X used her right to request a review. The Council’s review decision letter, which the Council sent to Miss X’s solicitors, upheld the decision that the offer was suitable and advised of the right to go to the county court on a point of law. Therefore the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to this part of the complaint.
- Whether a particular property met the legal definition of suitability for a particular person is a point of law. The law expressly provides this route for disputes about the suitability of temporary accommodation. So we normally expect people to use this route. The court could overturn the Council’s position and make a binding order if it sees fit. I appreciate Miss X has some difficulties dealing with matters, including concentration and memory issues. However, Miss X was able to complain to the Council and to use her review right, including by seeking help from solicitors. I am satisfied Miss X could use her court appeal right, including by seeking help if she considered it necessary, for example from solicitors, a law centre, advice agency or housing organisation. There is a possible cost implication with court action. However, help with legal costs might be available and Miss X could seek her costs if a court appeal succeeded. Also, the potential cost of court action is not in itself automatically a reason for the Ombudsman to investigate instead. Overall, I consider it is reasonable in the circumstances to expect Miss X to have used her court appeal right when she had that right.
- The Council said Miss X had refused the offer of accommodation, so it ended its duty to offer Miss X housing. Miss X argues the Council was wrong to end the duty in those circumstances. She states the Council officer present at the viewing did not let her view inside the property. Miss X also states the officer then talked her out of accepting the property, which Miss X was seemingly contemplating accepting at least for the time being and then seeking to move again.
- This point is about whether the Council should have ended its duty. So the review and appeal rights mentioned above also apply to this part of the complaint. Miss X asked the Council to review the decision. It is not for the Ombudsman to intervene in that review, which is part of the legal process. If the review decision is unfavourable, or if the Council does not send a review decision after 56 days (unless Miss X agreed to give the Council more time), Miss X would then have the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law for 21 days. Whether the Council’s actions meant Miss X had legally freely refused the property is a point of law. For the same reasons I gave above, it would be reasonable to expect Miss X to have used her court appeal right if her review request did not result in a decision in her favour.
- Miss X says she wants the result of her complaint to the Ombudsman to be that: she is not made homeless from her temporary accommodation; the Council will offer her a suitable property; and let her view inside it first. Those points relate to whether the offer was suitable and whether the Council should have ended its duty. As explained above, those are points for the review and court appeal procedure, not for us.
- Miss X also complains the Council damaged her physical and mental health by leaving her for two years in temporary accommodation that was unsafe and in poor condition. She states she wants compensation. The alleged effect on Miss X’s health is really a claim of personal injury. The courts can consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to this point. The existence of, liability for, and compensation for personal injury are not straightforward matters legally. The Ombudsman cannot reasonably decide those points. Nor is it the Ombudsman’s role to award compensation in the way the courts can. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide this. So it would be reasonable for Miss X to go to court if she wants a decision and compensation about this point.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Miss X to have used her review and court appeal rights.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman