The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Mr X to use the review/appeal procedure to challenge the Council’s decision.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s decision on his homelessness application that he was non-priority and that it had no duty to provide him with accommodation.
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.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X applied to the Council as homeless because he was no longer able to stay with family. The Council accepted his application under the Relief duty but told him it would not provide accommodation because he was non-priority homeless under the Hosing Act 1996 part 7. The decision letter advised Mr X of his right to ask for a review of the decision under s.202 of the legislation.
Mr X asked the Council to carry out a review and also complained to us. The Council confirmed to us that the review is ongoing. We will not investigate this complaint because we cannot overturn a council’s homelessness decision. There is a review and appeal procedure available under the Housing Act 1996 and it was reasonable for Mr X to follow this, which he has done so far. If the outcome of the s.202 review is unchanged he will have a further right to challenge it by appealing to the County Court.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Mr X to use the review/appeal procedure to challenge the Council’s decision.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman