The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: A woman complained that the Council had unreasonably decided it had no duty to house her under the homelessness legislation, even though the courts had already quashed a previous decision that it did not owe her a duty. But we will not investigate this matter as the woman has statutory review and potential court appeal rights she can use to dispute the Council’s new decision in her case.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The law says we normally cannot 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information Ms X provided with her complaint. I also considered information the Council supplied about Ms X’s homelessness case. In addition, I took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Housing Act 1996 (‘the Act’) gives homelessness applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their application. This includes a decision that an applicant is not owed a housing duty because they do not have a priority need under the Act. If someone wants to challenge a negative review decision they can appeal to the county court if there is a point of law to argue.
Ms X first approached the Council as homeless a few years ago. But the Council decided it did not owe her the main housing duty under the Act because she did not have a priority need. In particular she was not deemed to be ‘vulnerable’ on medical grounds.
The Council upheld this decision on review and Ms X then appealed to the county court about the review decision. Earlier this year the court quashed that decision which meant the Council had to consider Ms X’s application again and come to a fresh decision. The Council recently issued its new decision in Ms X’s case, but it still reached a finding that she does not have a priority need.
However I do not see that we should investigate Ms X’s complaint about this matter. Ms X is understandably upset that the Council has reached the same finding as before after the courts had dismissed its first decision. But the fact remains that this is a completely new decision by the Council, which means that Ms X has fresh review and possible appeal rights she can use to challenge it.
I note that Ms X has already put in a review request to the Council. I also see no reason why she should not be expected to appeal again to the county court if the review decision is negative and she considers it is wrong in law, not least because she is already familiar with the process and how to source legal help.
In any case, unlike the Council or the courts, we have no powers to overturn homelessness decisions or rule on points of law. So we cannot reach our own finding about Ms X’s homelessness application or force the Council to change its decision. Therefore we would be unable to achieve the outcome she wants from her complaint.
Final decision
Ms X complained that the Council had unfairly decided it had no legal duty to house her as a homeless person when the courts had already rejected a similar decision it had made previously in her case. But we will not investigate this matter because Ms X has fresh review and potential appeal rights she can use to challenge the Council’s new decision.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman