The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s review of a homelessness decision. This is mainly because the law prevents us doing so.
The complaint
Ms X complained about events related to her asking the Council to review the suitability of a property it had offered her to resolve her homelessness.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916) For the purposes of the restriction in paragraph 2, someone has ‘sought a remedy’ when they apply to the court. This is the case even if the person has withdrawn their application or if the court has not yet decided the matter.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X was homeless. The Council offered her a property. Ms X decided the property was not suitable, including for her disability-related needs. Ms X used her legal right to ask the Council to review the property’s suitability. Ms X eventually received an unfavourable review decision. She then used her right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. Ms X told me she now intends to withdraw the appeal because her circumstances have changed.
Ms X’s complaint to us said the Council had offered a property without ensuring Miss X could end her legal responsibility for another property to avoid being responsible for two properties at once and without the offer being suitable for her needs. Those points are about the offer’s suitability. Ms X had, and used, the right to take court action about that. Therefore, as paragraphs 2 and 3 explained, the law prevents us considering these points, even if Ms X does not intend to continue with the appeal.
When Ms X first contacted us, she had not received a review decision from the Council, so she complained the Council was delaying doing the review. After then, the Council issued the review decision. Miss X told me she does not want us to consider the result of the Council’s review (whether the review decision about suitability was correct). Rather she now complains about the process the Council followed. This includes how long the review took and the Council not giving Ms X the opportunity to provide more information, not offering to meet Ms X to discuss the review and not sending a ‘minded-to’ letter on which Ms X could have commented before the Council issued the review decision. Ms X wants the Council to apologise and make her a payment for how those points affected her.
I understand why Ms X makes the distinction between process and result. However, it is not so straightforward with our legal powers. The points about the Council’s alleged procedural failures during the review are points that could be put to the court in support of an argument that the review decision was not properly reached. The court, if it saw fit, could quash or vary the Council’s decision about the suitability of the property. That would not provide the apology and payment Ms X seeks for the alleged procedural flaws. However, the restriction in paragraph 2 applies. Where someone has used a court appeal right, the law prevents us investigating even where the court appeal, if successful, would not have provided a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. The Council’s decision, Ms X’s review request, the Council’s review decision and Ms X’s court appeal together form a continuum of events culminating in Ms X taking court action. In those circumstances, the law does not allow us to step in and try to separate out and investigate one part of that series of events. The court not having decided the appeal yet and Ms X’s intention to withdraw the appeal do not affect this.
Ms X is also dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of her attempts to complain about these matters. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. The law prevents us investigating matters related to the review. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman