The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness case. This is because it was reasonable for her to use her alternative right of appeal to the County Court.
The complaint
Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her homelessness case and its decision about the suitability of her accommodation.
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) The County Court deals with appeals about homelessness decisions.
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended) We may also decide not to start or continue an investigation if we decide: further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision that she is not eligible for a three-bedroom property. She says she needs a three-bedroom property for an overnight carer to care for her disabled child and herself.
The Council’s decision carried a right of appeal to the County Court. The Ombudsman is not alternative appeal body. If Miss X disagreed with the Council’s decision, then she could have appealed to the County Court. I have seen no evidence to suggest it was unreasonable for her to appeal. Therefore, I will not investigate this aspect of her complaint.
Handling of homelessness case Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her homelessness case. She says the delays and lack of communication caused her distress and prolonged uncertainty about her housing circumstances.
The Council acknowledged that it did not respond to Miss X within requisite timeframes. It apologised to Miss X for the delays and offered her £200 in recognition of the distress caused. It also provided a response to her outstanding queries regarding her housing circumstances.
The Council has taken appropriate and proportionate action to remedy the injustice caused by its fault. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome or achieve a more worthwhile outcome.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it was reasonable for her to use her right of appeal to the County Court. The Council has acknowledged and remedied injustice caused by its poor case handling and therefore there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our further investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman