The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s homelessness application. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to use his review right if he disagreed with the Council’s decision he was not homeless. In that context, it would be disproportionate for us to investigate the handling of Mr X’s approach to the Council.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. He said the Council had not properly considered the evidence. Mr X said this causes him to be fearful as he remains living somewhere he considers unsafe.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The central point of this complaint is Mr X’s dissatisfaction the Council did not accept him as homeless. Mr X complained to the Council about its actions after he presented as homeless in December 2023. He was dissatisfied the Council had decided he was not homeless. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council reconsidered the matter in March 2024, seemingly because it doubted it had considered the earlier application thoroughly enough. That led to a Council decision in March 2024 that Mr X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness.
When a Council makes a decision such as this, the applicant has the right to ask the Council to review its decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) The law expressly provides this route for challenging such decisions, so we normally expect people to use it.
The Council’s decision letter told Mr X of his right to ask for a review within 21 days. Mr X is obviously able to pursue matters and I note he was able to seek legal advice about his housing situation. In the circumstances, I consider Mr X could reasonably have used his review right if he thought the Council’s decision was wrong. Therefore we shall not investigate whether the Council was wrong to say Mr X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness.
I appreciate the March 2024 decision followed an earlier decision and seeming difficulties pursuing the earlier homelessness application. However, whatever difficulties, communication problems or confusion there might have been earlier, the Council’s more recent consideration resulted in the same decision – the Council did not find Mr X was homeless or threatened with homelessness. Therefore it would be disproportionate to investigate any earlier procedural problems when the result was the same and when it is not for us to decide the central point – Mr X’s wish for the Council to accept him as homeless – for the reasons given in paragraphs 6 to 8.
Mr X also says if the Council will not accept his homelessness application, he wants it to help him move to another area. The Council has no duty to do that. It has given Mr X some advice about housing options. Any investigation by us would be unlikely to fault the Council for not doing more on this point.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. On the main point of his homelessness status, it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use his review right. In that context, it would be disproportionate for us to investigate peripheral points about the handling of Mr X’s approach to the Council. On Mr X’s alternative suggestion the Council should help him move elsewhere, we are unlikely to fault the Council’s actions.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman