Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council offering properties and ending its homelessness duty to Miss X. We cannot achieve more regarding Miss X receiving several offers. Miss X could reasonably have used her right to take court action on the Council ending its homelessness duty and saying the property it formally offered was suitable.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the circumstances in which the Council ended its homelessness duty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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: we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X was homeless. The Council had a legal duty to offer her one suitable property. Miss X received several offers of housing around the same time. The Council accepts that should not have happened. The Council did not proceed with some of the purported offers but formally offered Miss X one property to end its homelessness duty. Miss X is particularly dissatisfied the Council withdrew one of the offers, which was a property she wanted to live in. The Council says that property was offered after its homelessness duty had ended, so should not have been offered. The problem understandably confused and frustrated Miss X and she had some avoidable disappointment. The Council apologised.
7. I consider the Council’s apology was enough remedy for the impact on Miss X. The Council’s error in contacting Miss X about several properties did not oblige it to proceed with any particular offer, let alone the one Miss X preferred. Miss X wants her complaint to us to result in the Council offering her a property in her preferred area. In the circumstances, we cannot reasonably recommend that.
8. Miss X and the Council disagreed about whether the property the Council formally offered to end its homelessness duty was suitable. Miss X used her legal right to ask the Council to review the property’s suitability. The Council’s review decision confirmed the Council considered the property suitable. The review decision told Miss X of her legal right to appeal to the county court on a point of law within 21 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 204) The question of whether the property met the legal tests for suitability, including regarding Miss X’s support needs, her need to help look after a relative, her children’s education and medical needs and her job was a point of law. So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies.
9. The law expressly provides this route for challenging such decisions, so we normally expect people to use it. The court could make a binding decision and overturn the Council’s decision if it sees fit, unlike the Ombudsman. Miss X knew about her court appeal right. Shortly after the Council sent the review decision letter, it also sent a response to Miss X’s complaint about the handling of the matter. The complaint response said Miss X could contact us about her complaint. However, it did not state or imply the Ombudsman, rather than the court, would decide the suitability of the homelessness offer or whether the Council should have ended its homelessness duty. The Council made sufficiently clear the way to challenge those matters was by court action. There might be a potential cost to court action, but that is not in itself automatically a reason to consider court action unreasonable. Applicants can get help with court costs if they are eligible. The Council’s letter told Miss X how to get information about legal aid and included the contact details of an advice agency. For these reasons, I consider it would have been reasonable for Miss X to use her right go to court when she had that right. This means it is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether the offer was suitable or whether the Council should have ended its homelessness duty based on that offer.
10. Miss X also says the Council wrongly stated she refused offers. The only relevant offer was the one the Council formally made to end its duty. The Council’s review decision gave reasons why it believed Miss X had refused that offer. Miss X could reasonably have used her court appeal right if she believed the Council was wrong on the legal point of whether her actions amounted to refusal of the offer.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. We cannot achieve more regarding the problem with Miss X receiving several offers. On the Council ending its homelessness duty and saying the property it formally offered was suitable, Miss X could reasonably have used her right to take court action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman