The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant is not homeless. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and the complainant could have used his appeal rights.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision that he is not homeless. He wants the Council to re-house him.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the homelessness decision and review decision. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
Mr X lives in a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO). He is a HGV driver and says his accommodation is unsuitable because it is noisy and affects his sleep. He says it is dangerous to drive when sleep deprived. Mr X last worked as a driver in 2017 but wants to move so he can resume work as a driver. Mr X has also referred to the impact on his mental health, the conduct of other tenants and vermin. Mr X says that as he is over 35 years of age he should not be living in a HMO and is entitled to a one bedroom flat.
Mr X made a homelessness application to the Council. The Council decided he is not homeless and rejected the application. In response to his review request the Council carried out a review in early September and confirmed the decision. The Council gave Mr X 21 days to appeal to the court if he disagreed with the decision on any point of law. Mr X has not appealed.
Mr X says the Council ignored the impact the accommodation has on his ability to drive safely. He says the Council needs to provide alternative accommodation due to his age and the noise.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, we are not an appeal body and have no power to decide if someone is homeless and should be housed. The Council carried out a comprehensive review and considered all the relevant issues. This includes that Mr X has accommodation which is available, affordable and a suitable size. It noted the landlord had taken steps to deal with noise and asked Mr X to report any issues with vermin. The Council considered Mr X’s points about noise and noted he had not provided any medical evidence to show the accommodation is medically unsuitable. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the decision but there is nothing to suggest fault in the way the Council reached that decision. There is no need to start an investigation and we cannot change the Council’s decision.
Further, we have no power to ask the Council to re-house Mr X and there is no law or Council policy which says that someone aged over 35 years cannot live in an HMO or that someone of that age must be given a flat.
I also will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have appealed to the court if he thought the Council had misapplied the law.
Final decision
We will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and Mr X could have used his appeal rights.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman