Brighton & Hove City Council (24 012 039)

Category : Housing > Homelessness

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 24 Feb 2025

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end its main housing duty. This is because Ms X could have challenged the Council’s decision here with the Courts, and it would have been reasonable for her to have done so. Additionally, we will not investigate the Council’s safeguarding responses in relation to Ms X, because it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

  1. Ms X said the Council were wrong to have ended its main housing duty and remove her from its housing register. She also said it took no action when it was made aware of safeguarding concerns about her.
  2. Ms X said this has left her feeling worthless and she wants the Council to award her an appropriate banding on its housing register.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Ms X said the Council did not properly consider her housing circumstances and the fact she is at risk of domestic abuse. She also said it never properly responded to safeguarding concerns about her.
  2. In 2023, the Council ended its main housing duty after Ms X refused a suitable offer of housing. Ms X asked the Council to review this decision which it then did. The review upheld its earlier decision and explained how Ms X could appeal this decision in Court.
  3. We will not investigate this part of Ms X’s complaint, because the Council gave Ms X her right of appeal and only the Court can overturn its decision to end its main housing duty. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for Ms X to have used this right of appeal.
  4. Ms X also said the Council took no action when others told it about their concerns about her safety. Ms X said she was at risk of domestic abuse. The Council provided me with copies of care and support review notes and copies of safeguarding referrals it had been sent. The notes show the Council considered the referrals and discussed these matters with Ms X. It also signposted her to other services. Furthermore, it identified Ms X’s support needs related to her housing situation and the evidence shows it made offers of emergency accommodation, which Ms X declined.
  5. Our role here is to consider if there was any fault in how the Council made its decision. We do not substitute our decision for theirs and where a decision is taken without any obvious flaw, we cannot criticise it. Given the Council’s information, I have not seen any evidence the Council did not properly make its decision on what support Ms X was due. Therefore, it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the housing decision, because Ms X had an alternative legal remedy, and it would have been reasonable for her to use it. And of the other matters she complains about, it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings