The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council ending its homelessness duty to him. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed to the county court. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into the Council’s decision to reduce Mr X’s housing priority.
The complaint
Mr X complains that the Council: Wrongly ended its homeless duty to him as it offered an unsuitable property and wrongly considered he had refused the offer.
Unfairly reduced his prioirty on the housing register.
Mr X says the Council’s decisions have caused significant distress to him.
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 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 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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 made a homelessness application, and the Council subsequently accepted the main housing duty. The Council offered a private rented property to Mr X to end the main housing duty. It considered Mr X declined a suitable offer, so it ended the main housing duty.
Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision as he considered the property offered was unsuitable. He also said the Council wrongly considered he had refused the offer when he asked for a second viewing. The Council carried out the review but upheld its decision to end the main housing duty.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end the main housing duty. Mr X had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law against the Council’s decision. The Council’s review decision letter notified Mr X of his right to appeal to the county court. Mr X’s emails to the Council show he considered the Council did not address all the material points he raised. So, Mr X could have appealed to the county court on a point of law It is therefore reasonable to expect Mr X to have used his right of appeal to the county court.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council reducing his housing priority. We are not an appeal body so we do not come to our own view on what priority should be awarded. Our role is to consider if the Council has followed the proper processes when making its decision. The Council’s letter offering the property to Mr X advised his housing priority would be removed if he refused the offer. The decision to reduce his priority is also in accordance with its housing allocation policy. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this aspect of Mr X’s complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed to the county court against the Council’s decision to end the main housing duty. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to reduce Mr X’s housing priority to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman