The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Mr X was not in priority need. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the county court against this decision.
The complaint
Mr X complains that the Council failed to provide interim accommodation to him as it wrongly decided he was not in priority need as he was not fleeing domestic abuse. Mr X also considers the Council discriminated against him as a male victim of domestic abuse. Mr X says that as a result he was street homeless which has caused significant distress and affected his physical and mental health.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X applied to the Council as homeless and told the Council he was fleeing domestic abuse. The Council decided Mr X was not fleeing domestic abuse so he was not in priority need. It told Mr X that the Council did not have a duty to provide interim accommodation as he was not in priority need.
Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision as he considered its decision that he was not fleeing domestic abuse to be wrong. The Council considered the review but decided that Mr X was not fleeing domestic abuse so he was not in priority need. The Council’s letter notifying Mr X of its decision explained that he could appeal to the county court within 21 days if he considered its decision was wrong in law.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as he had the right to appeal to the county court against the Council’s decision that he was not in priority need. We consider it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the county court as the Council notified him of his right.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman