Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to issue a review decision on its homeless decision that he was not in priority need. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complained about the Council’s failure to issue a homeless review response following its initial decision that he was not in priority need. He says that he will appeal any final decision in the courts once a decision has been issued but he is being denied this opportunity.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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 all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X applied to the Council as homeless in 2019. He was placed in temporary accommodation and in February 2020 the Council issued a decision on his homeless application. The Council concluded that he was not in priority need and that it had no duty to accommodate him. Mr X’s solicitors asked the Council for a review of the decision in March just before the Covid-19 lockdown.
6. Mr X complained to us in August because he had not received a response to the review request. He said that he intended to appeal against the Council’s homeless decision in the courts but could not do so until the outcome of the review was issued.
7. On 8 September the Council issued a ‘minded to’ letter which summed up the likely outcome of the review and gave Mr X a final opportunity to comment or provide new information. His solicitors responded and on 23 September the Council issued its final review decision, confirming that he was not considered to be in priority need. The letter advised him of his right to appeal to the County Court within 21 days.
8. Mr X has been accommodated by the Council until up to when it issued the review decision, and he can now appeal against the homeless decision to the court. The Ombudsman cannot challenge the homeless decision and the court outcome will be binding on both parties.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman