Summary: Miss X complained the Council relied on the offer of an unsuitable property to end its homelessness duty to her and did not give her the opportunity to have this decision reviewed. Miss X said she has remained in unsuitable accommodation as a result, which has caused her real distress. We do not find fault with the process the Council followed to assess the suitability of the property or to review its decision.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council relied on the offer of an unsuitable property to end its homelessness duty to her and did not give her the opportunity to have this decision reviewed. As a result, Miss X says she is currently living in a single bedroom with her son, Y, which is causing real distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint and considered information she provided. I also considered information received from the Council.
6. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them and anyone who lives with them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
9. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
10. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions, including the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted.
12. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)

What happened

13. I have summarised below some key events leading to Miss X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
14. Miss X lived in a room in her mother’s house with Y. This was intended to be a short-term living situation and Miss X was seeking alternative accommodation.
15. In September 2023, Miss X contacted the Council to explain her mother had asked her to leave and the Council accepted a homeless duty to her. At this time, Miss X continued to live with her mother and look for alternative accommodation.
16. As Miss X had not found a property by March 2024, the Council explained it would look at making a direct offer of a property to her. Miss X provided the Council with a copy of a letter from her doctor, dated February 2024. This explained Y was struggling with anxiety and behavioural problems and it was imperative for him to have his own personal space.
17. The Council wrote to Miss X on 20 May with an offer of accommodation. The Council explained it believed this property was suitable for Miss X’s needs and if she refused this its responsibilities towards her as a homeless applicant would come to an end. The Council also explained Miss X had the right to ask for a review if she did not believe the property was suitable.
18. Miss X wrote to the Council the following day to explain she had been to look at the property from the outside but had concerns around access to the outdoor space. Miss X explained Y was currently being assessed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism. Miss X said there was no direct access to the garden, meaning Y would need to use the front door to access the path to this, which was not suitable for him.
19. Miss X then complained to the Council on 31 May. She explained she had viewed the property and, while the indoor space was suitable, the outdoor space was not. Miss X said Y used the garden every day and having to exit the front door to access this made it unsafe for him. Miss X reiterated that Y was currently awaiting a medical diagnosis, but she knew this would not be suitable for him.
20. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint on 7 June. The Council said it had considered everything Miss X had provided about her circumstances before deciding the property was suitable. The Council said the doctor’s letter stated Y needed his own personal space but gave no specific recommendations beyond this. The Council explained Miss X could ask for the suitability of the property to be reviewed but if this was then considered suitable, it would be classed as a final offer and refusal would result in the Council discharging its homeless duties.
21. Miss X responded to the Council that day. She said she had viewed the property and it was not suitable for her. Miss X said she was refusing the property and asked what the next steps were.
22. The Council called Miss X on 10 June to discuss the process of refusing the offer and that a decision to end the main homeless duty would follow. The Council also discussed how to appeal the decision.
23. The Council wrote to Miss X that same day to confirm it had ended its homeless duty to her as she had refused a suitable final offer of social housing. The Council explained Miss X had the right to seek a review of the decision to end the duty owed to her if she still thinks the property is unsuitable for her. The Council explained she could request a review within 21 days.
24. Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in June 2024.
25. The Council called Miss X on 2 July. The Council explained Miss X’s 21 days to ask for a review was now at an end. It reiterated that Miss X could accept the property and ask for a review, rather than rejecting it. Miss X said she did not want to accept the property and would prefer to stay where she was at that time. Miss X confirmed she did not have any further medical evidence but was awaiting this from her doctor. Miss X confirmed she should have the evidence within a week, and the Council agreed to consider this when it came in.

Analysis

26. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means it is not our role to take a second look at a decision on whether a property was suitable to decide if it was right or wrong. We are also not here to substitute the Council’s opinion for our own when it comes to matters such as whether someone has specific housing needs.
27. Instead, we look at the processes a council followed to make its decisions. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, and they were in line with the relevant law and guidance, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.
28. Miss X provided the Council with medical evidence ahead of it making a direct offer of a property to her. This medical evidence said Y needed his own personal space but made no recommendation beyond that. The Council considered this when deciding whether the property it offered to Miss X was suitable for her needs. I could not find fault with the process the Council followed to make its decision here.
29. Miss X had told the Council Y was being assessed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism and awaiting a diagnosis. However, in the absence of a specific medical diagnosis or recommendation, the Council could only base its decision on what information it had. The Council made Miss X aware she could submit further medical information later if things changed and I do not find it at fault here.
30. Miss X then viewed the property and contacted the Council to refuse it. The Council reiterated that Miss X had the right to request a review and what the consequences of refusing the property would be, but Miss X still refused the property. As a result, the Council ended its homeless duty to Miss X and informed her of the right to have that decision reviewed. The Council followed the right process here and I do not find it at fault.
31. Since Miss X’s complaint has been with the Ombudsman, her 21 days to appeal the Council’s decision has come to an end. However, the Council contacted Miss X and agreed to extend this time in order for her to provide further medical evidence. I do not find the Council at fault here. If Miss X is unhappy with the outcome of that review, or any other events that have occurred since she first brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, she would be free to raise these with the Council as a new issue and ask it to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I find no fault with the process the Council followed to decide on the suitability of the property it offered Miss X or its decision to end its homeless duty to her. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman