Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council failed to comply with its duties under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. This is because it was reasonable for him to pursue his right of appeal to the county court when the Council did not review its decision to end its prevention and relief duties.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained that the Council failed to comply with its duties under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. Mr B told us he and his family have been forced to move to three different boroughs in a short time which affected his children’s schooling and he wants to live in the borough where he grew up.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr B provided, the Homeless Reduction Act 2017 (the Act) and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government publication “Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities”. I have given Mr B an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B told us he made a homelessness application to the Council in May 2018. He says he gave the Council all the information it asked for and showed evidence of his local connection to the borough. The Council accepted a relief duty under the Act. It placed Mr B and his family in emergency accommodation.
6. In October 2018 the Council wrote to Mr B to tell him it was ending its prevention and relief duty under the Act. That was because another council, Council Z, had confirmed it owed Mr B the main housing duty under section 184 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended. Council Z said it would ensure Mr B had suitable accommodation available to him. The Council says the other Council Z had also agreed to take over responsibility for Mr B’s temporary accommodation. The Council said, once it had ended its relief duty, it did not go on to consider whether it owed Mr B the main housing duty. It cannot review the decision Council Z reached.
7. Mr B told us he then found out the landlord wanted his property back so he would have to leave. He asked the Council to review its decision. He complains that the Council failed to act on his request and it has acted in breach of articles 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
8. Mr B’s advisor wrote to the Council seeking a review of the Council’s decision. The advisor said Mr B was disputing his connection with Council Z and further detailed representations would follow.
9. In its final response to Mr B’s complaint the Council said it had emailed Mr B’s advisor in November 2018 about Mr B’s review request. The Council said in its email Council Z had offered Mr B temporary accommodation which he had accepted. So its view was its decision to end its relief duty was valid. The Council invited Mr B to withdraw his review request because it said the request had become academic.
10. Mr B’s advisor told the Council Mr B had not given instructions to withdraw his review request. The Council says it received no further representations so it did not carry out the review.
11. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days a council notifying them of certain decision including:

• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.

12. Homeless applicants can appeal to the county court on a point of law if a council fails to complete reviews with the time the law prescribes and they have not agreed in writing to an extension of time. In this case it was reasonable to expect Mr B to go to court because he complains the Council has not acted in accordance with the law on homelessness and human rights. That is a legal matter. A court of law is the appropriate body to rule on whether a Council has failed to comply with the law. Mr B had access to advice on his situation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to pursue his right of appeal to the county court when the Council did not review its decision to end its prevention and relief duties.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman