The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Mr X is intentionally homeless. It was reasonable for him to appeal the decision to the County Court following his statutory review outcome.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s decision that he is intentionally homeless following his eviction from his previous accommodation. He says the Council acted unreasonably and should re-house him.
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 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)) The law says we cannot normally 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 information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says the Council should not have decided he was intentionally homeless following his eviction from his previous accommodation by his private landlord. He asked the Council to review its homelessness decision under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996.
The Council reviewed his case but decided that the decision was correct and that he was intentionally homeless and may be no longer in priority need as his daughter was no longer resident. The Council advised him of his right to appeal the decision in the County Court within 21 days. Mr X did not appeal but complained to us.
We will not investigate this complaint. It was reasonable for Mr X to challenge the Council’s decision by way of an appeal to the court.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Mr X is intentionally homeless. It was reasonable for him to appeal the decision to the County Court following his statutory review outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman