Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the home the Council offered Miss X to end its homelessness duty. Miss X could reasonably have used her review right. As she did not do so, the Council was not at fault for ending its homelessness involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not give her a suitable place to live when it ended its homelessness involvement. She says this means she and her family are living in unsuitable conditions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or it would have been reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X had been threatened with homelessness, so the Council owed her a legal duty to try to prevent her becoming homeless. The Council then offered Miss X a Council social housing property. Miss X now lives there. When Miss X accepted the offer, the Council ended its homelessness involvement and removed the high homelessness-related priority Miss X had had on the Council’s housing register.
7. Miss X says the offer was not suitable because: the property is on a high floor and the lift does not always work, so she has to carry a young child, pushchair and shopping on the stairs; and the property had an insect infestation, which the Council treated with poison, which is dangerous as her child might swallow the poison.
8. When the Council offered the property and ended its homelessness duty, it told Miss X about her right to ask it to review its decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If a review does not change the Council’s position, the applicant can then appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204) The law expressly provides this route for challenging such decisions, so we normally expect people to use it. If Miss X considered the property unsuitable at time, she had the right to ask the Council to review the position. The Council told me Miss X did not ask for a review.
9. I consider Miss X could reasonably have asked for a review at the time if she was not satisfied with the offer. Without a review request, it was not fault for the Council to end its homelessness involvement. It is not appropriate for us to revisit this now.
10. Later, when Miss X told the Council she was unhappy with her property, it was not fault for the Council not to reinstate Miss X’s previous high priority on the housing register. That priority had come from Miss X being threatened with homelessness. Miss X was no longer threatened with homelessness once she had a property.
11. Miss X is dissatisfied with how the Council has treated the infestation at her property and with its handling of the behaviour of other people in the building. Those points concern the Council’s management of its social housing. The restriction in paragraph 2 prevents us considering those points.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. Miss X could reasonably have used her review right. As she did not do so, the Council was not at fault for ending its homelessness involvement. The law prevents us investigating the Council’s actions about the infestation and about other people’s behaviour in its building.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman