The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Miss X was not homeless, and related matters including alleged discrimination and bias. It is reasonable for Miss X to use her statutory right of appeal to the county court on a point of law. The peripheral matters are not separable from the homelessness decision.
The complaint
Miss X complained about the Council’s decision she was not homeless and its officers’ related behaviour towards her. She said the Council: defamed her; racially discriminated against her; acted with prejudice; and failed to provide her family with an adequate standard of living.
Miss X said her family’s current accommodation was far below an acceptable standard and the matter caused her and her children significant distress. She wanted the Council to rehouse the family and make service improvements.
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) We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X complained to the Council about her decision she was not homeless, and related behaviours of its officers. The Council responded to her upholding its original decision and signposting Miss X to her statutory right of appeal via the county court.
Where someone has a right of appeal via the courts, we will not normally investigate the matter instead. Legal aid is available for such appeals and the courts are best placed to consider them. There is not a reason in this case that investigation by us would be more appropriate. It is reasonable for Miss X to use her statutory right of appeal.
The peripheral complaints Miss X raises are ultimately not separable from the decision she can appeal. The alleged consequence of any discrimination, defamation and prejudice was the decision Miss X is not homeless. All parts of the complaint are matters Miss X can raise as part of her appeal.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is reasonable for her to use her statutory right of appeal to the county court on a point of law, and it is open to her to raise the peripheral complaints as part of that appeal.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman