Summary: The Ombudsman cannot continue to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in reviewing his personalised housing plan. This is because he has already raised this in court. The Council failed to advise Mr X of his right to appeal to court when it later reissued its review decision. However, this has not caused Mr X an injustice as he was aware of his right of appeal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed dealing with his request for a review of his personalised housing plan. Mr X also says the Council failed to make it clear whether the person carrying out the review was more senior than the original decision maker.
2. Mr X says as a result of the Council’s delays he had to go to court and is still homeless.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered the information Mr X has provided to the Ombudsman. This includes copies of his complaints to the Council and its responses.
9. I have also considered information the Council has provided to the Ombudsman. This includes information about a judicial review claim Mr X made in High Court against the Council.
10. I have written to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness law

11. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
12. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Statutory guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their “personalised housing plan”. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
13. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the certain decisions including:
• their eligibility for assistance
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end
14. If a person is unhappy with a council’s decision on review they may appeal to the County Court on a point of law.

What happened

15. Mr X approached the Council on 10 July 2018 to say he was going to be homeless. The Council arranged an appointment for Mr X to discuss his situation with an officer on 19 July 2018.
16. On 24 July 2018 the Council sent Mr X a copy of a personalised housing plan (PHP). Mr X asked for a review of his PHP on the same day.
17. On 15 December 2018 the Council wrote to Mr X with its decision on his review of his PHP. The Council said it was satisfied that the PHP addressed Mr X’s housing needs and his circumstances. Mr X says he did not receive this letter. The Council says it was sent to the wrong address but was also available for collection from its offices.
18. Mr X judicially reviewed the Council’s decision to remove him from its housing register in the High Court. However, one of Mr X’s grounds for taking this action was the Council’s failure to issue a review decision on his PHP.
19. The High Court refused Mr X permission to judicially review the Council on 22 May 2019.
20. On the 5 August 2019 the Council issued a further review decision on Mr X’s PHP in response to his further complaints to the Council following his judicial review. The Council apologised for not sending this to Mr X earlier. The review letter did not inform Mr X he could appeal to county court if he was unhappy with the Council’s review decision.

My findings

21. I cannot continue to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in issuing him with a review decision on his PHP. This is because Mr X has raised this matter in court. Therefore, this matter is now outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
22. Mr X says his claim for judicial review was struck out and the courts did not specifically consider the Council’s review of his PHP. However, the fact Mr X raised this matter with the courts is sufficient to take it outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
23. The issue of whether the reviewing officer was more senior to the original decision maker is one Mr X could raise in county court as part of an appeal against the Council’s decision on review. Mr X has a statutory right of appeal in court and as he has already taken court action against the Council, I consider it reasonable for him to have pursued this matter in court.
24. The Council reissued its review decision to Mr X on 5 August 2019. This would afford Mr X a further opportunity to appeal the Council’s review decision in county court. However, the Council failed to explain that Mr X had a right to appeal in its decision letter. This is fault.
25. This has not caused Mr X an injustice. It is clear from Mr X’s judicial review claim that he is aware of his right of appeal to court and I see no reason why he could not have pursued this if he was unhappy with the Council’s review decision of 5 August 2019.
26. Mr X says he decided to pursue his complaint with the Ombudsman rather than his right of appeal in county court. However, we would usually expect a person to pursue a statutory right of appeal to court where one exists. Mr X was made aware of our position when we sent him our factsheet on homelessness on 12 July 2019. Mr X has referred to this factsheet within his response to my draft decision.
27. As Mr X was aware that we would usually expect a person to pursue a right of appeal in court, was aware that he had such a right and has previously brought court action against the Council I consider it reasonable to expect him to have done so when he received the Council’s review decision on 5 August 2019.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation. This is because I have found fault but this has not caused Mr X an injustice.
29. I have not been able to continue my investigation into Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s delays in issuing a review decision on his PHP as he has already raised this matter in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman