Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness and housing applications. On one part, it was reasonable for him to use his right of appeal. On the other part, the Council has agreed to remedy the complaint by issuing a separate housing decision. This provides a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his homelessness and housing applications. He says the Council initially accepted his housing application and does not understand why it has now cancelled it. He wants the Council to keep his application on its housing allocation scheme.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate
4. 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)
5. The County Court deals with appeals about homelessness decisions.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council decided to end its main homeless duty to Mr X because it offered him accommodation which it believed to be suitable. Mr X asked for a review of this decision which the Council upheld on review.
9. We will not investigate the Council’s decision to end its main homeless duty to Mr X. The review decision carried a right of appeal to the County Court on a point of law. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and cannot overturn or change decisions. If Mr X disagreed with the decision, then he could have appealed to the County Court. I have seen no evidence to suggest it was unreasonable for him to appeal. Therefore, we will not investigate.

Housing decision

10. The Council’s policies state that it will cancel a housing application from its housing register where an applicant has had their homelessness resolved through an offer of accommodation to end a main homeless duty. Applicants have a right to ask for a review of cancelled applications.
11. The Council told us that it notified Mr X about its decision to cancel his housing application within the same decision letter that ended its main homeless duty. It also said that it upheld this decision on review.
12. We reviewed the decision letters and considered that it only explained the Council’s decision to end the main homeless duty. We did not consider that it clearly explained the Council had also cancelled Mr X’s housing application.
13. The decision to cancel a housing register application is separate from the decision to end the main homeless duty. If we were to investigate, it is likely we would find the Council at fault because it did not clearly notify Mr X that it cancelled his housing application, explain the reasons for doing so, or provide him with a clear opportunity to challenge that decision. This has caused Mr X uncertainty and confusion about the reasons for the decision and his right to challenge it. We therefore asked the Council to consider resolving this complaint early.

Back to top

Agreed action

14. To its credit, the Council has agreed to resolve this complaint by completing the following action within four weeks of this decision statement:
• Issue Mr X a separate letter setting out its decision on his housing register application, including his review rights;
• Apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty and confusion caused by not clearly explaining the status of his housing register application; and
• Remind relevant officers to notify applicants when cancelling a housing register application, and to provide them their review rights.
15. The Council should provide us with evidence to show it has completed the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate one of Mr X’s complaints because it was reasonable for him to use his right of appeal on the homelessness decision. We will not investigate his other complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman