Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the suitability of the accommodation she moved to after she became homeless. This is because she had review and appeal rights if she did not consider the accommodation was suitable and it was reasonable for her to exercise those rights.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained her the accommodation she moved to after becoming homeless is unsuitable for her. As a result, she says she is not able to have medical treatment that she needs, and she has been told she needs to start the process again. She also complained her belongings had been lost.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Unsuitable accommodation

7. Ms X sought assistance from the Council in June 2024 when she was at risk of homelessness. It accepted a prevention duty. Ms X was referred for, and accepted, a tenancy at property A. The Council ended the prevention duty on the grounds she had suitable accommodation available to her, which would remain available for two years. Its letter explained she had the right to ask for a review of its decision within 21 days if she disagreed with it.
8. If Ms X considered property A was unsuitable, she had the right to ask for a review of the Council’s decision. She would then have had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. It was reasonable for her to exercise those rights, so we will not consider this part of her complaint further.
9. If her circumstances have changed since that decision, she can make a further homelessness application to this Council or another council. The Council is therefore not at fault for advising she needs to start the process again.

Loss of belongings

10. In its complaint response, the Council said she had abandoned a previous property in late 2023, following which the landlord took legal action to end her tenancy. It explained that, as Miss X had abandoned the property, it was her responsibility to remove her belongings.
11. We will not consider this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms’s complaint because she had rights of review and appeal and it was reasonable for her to exercise those rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman