Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems at the building where Miss X lives. This is mainly because the law prevents us investigating complaints related to the Council’s role as freeholder.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to deal effectively with disrepair in the building where she lives; a representative of the Council, after visiting her flat, did not make a homelessness referral to another local authority under the ‘duty to refer’ or advise Miss X to apply as homeless to the other authority; and the Council dealt with her formal complaint about the matter as an insurance claim rather than a complaint.

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 management of housing let on a long lease by a council that is a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5B, schedule 5, as amended)
3. The courts have said we can decide not to investigate a complaint about any action by a council concerning a matter which is outside our jurisdiction. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The complaint is about a building where the Council owns the freehold and has sold some flats on leaseholds. A leaseholder rents a flat to Miss X. The building is outside the Council’s district, in the area of another local authority, ‘Authority Z.’

Failure to deal effectively with disrepair

7. The Council’s involvement here is as freeholder of a building containing leasehold properties. Therefore the restriction in paragraph 2 prevents us considering the Council’s reaction to the disrepair.
8. Miss X’s complaint to the Council argued the Council should have inspected and taken action under the housing health and safety rating system. She cites section 4 of the Housing Act 1996. However, section 3 of that Act states those powers only apply to housing in the Council’s area. The Council had no such powers here because the building is outside its area.

Homelessness

9. An organisation manages the estate on the Council’s behalf. An officer of that organisation visited Miss X’s flat. Miss X complains the manager did not refer her as homeless to Authority Z or advise her to present as homeless to Authority Z.
10. The visit related to the Council’s role as freeholder. Therefore the restriction in paragraph 2 prevents us considering any action or inaction connected to that visit.
11. Anyway, the ‘duty to refer’ only applies to certain public authorities, not all. (Housing Act 1996, section 213B and The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018) The duty did not apply to the Council in its role as owner of the building or housing authority. The Council only has a ‘duty to refer’ in its role as social services authority, but it was not acting in that capacity in this case.

Miss X’s complaint to the Council

12. Miss X is unhappy the Council passed her formal complaint to its insurers rather than putting it through the Council’s complaint procedure. This point concerns the Council’s handling of a complaint about a matter that is outside our jurisdiction, so paragraph 3 applies. It would be a disproportionate use of public money to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling when we cannot investigate the underlying substantive matters complained of. So we shall not investigate this.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about events at the building and related matters. In that context, we will not investigate the complaint-handling either, as it would be disproportionate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman