The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a homelessness application. It was reasonable to expect Ms X to use her legal right to appeal to court.
The complaint
Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. She says the Council failed to consider evidence properly, misapplied the relevant legal tests under the Housing Act 1996 and failed to communicate effectively.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from the complainant, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
After completing inquiries, a council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30) The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204) In January, the Council sent Ms X its review under s202 of the Housing Act 1996. It upheld the original decision that Ms X was not homeless. It advised her of her legal right to appeal to the court under s204 of the Housing Act within 21 days on a point of law.
We will not investigate as the matters complained about are inextricably linked to the Council's homelessness decision and subsequent statutory review decision. Ms X exercised their right to request a review under s202, and the Council issued a final review decision. The review decision also advised them of their right to appeal to the County Court under s204 of the Housing Act 1996 Ms X’s concerns about the evidence considered, the assessment of accommodation available, the application of the homelessness legislation, and the reviewer’s conclusions are all matters that could have been considered by the court as points of law.
We would not normally investigate where a person had available to them, a statutory review and appeal process which Parliament has provided specifically to challenge homelessness decisions. We consider the court is better placed to determine disputes about the evidence, findings of fact, and application of homelessness legislation.
Nor would we investigate the associated complaints about communication and complaint handling separately. These issues are closely connected to the homelessness decision-making and review process. These cannot realistically be separated from the core matters that were subject to review and could be considered through the statutory appeal route.
So, we will not investigate because it was reasonable for the complainants to use their appeal to court provided through the homelessness appeal process.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because it was reasonable to expect the complainant to apply to court on a point of law.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman