Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr D’s complaint that the Council has failed to consider points of law and legislation in his homelessness application when it decided he was not in priority need. This is because it was reasonable to expect Mr D to use his right of appeal to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains the Council has failed to consider relevant legislation and points of law when it considered his homelessness application and assessed he was not in priority need. Mr D accuses the Council of malpractice and says the decision has caused the loss of access to his son, financial hardship and made his anxiety and depression worse. Mr D would like the Council to provide him with permanent accommodation, financial compensation and a public apology.
2. Mr D also complains he made a Subject Access Request (SAR) from the Council in early 2020 to which he has not received a response.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered what Mr D has said in his complaint and the information he has sent in support of it. I have also considered correspondence about the complaint sent by the Council.
7. I have considered Mr D’s comments and correspondence on a draft before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr D was evicted from the property where he had been living and made a homelessness application to the Council in November 2019. Mr D says he was in priority need and says the Council has failed to consider points of law and legislation when considering his application.
9. Mr D has a young child and told the Council he wished them to be part of his application. The Council decided to remove Mr D’s child from his application saying it had already provided temporary accommodation for Mr D’s ex-partner and the child.
10. Mr D complains the decision by the Council has caused a loss of access to his child. The Council decided Mr D was not in priority need and it was not obliged to secure him accommodation.
11. The Council says it was aware of Mr D’s health issues, conditions and current treatments when considering his homelessness application.
12. In its review of its original decision the Council has listed both legislation and case law it considered when assessing Mr D’s homelessness application. It comments it did not consider Mr D to be significantly more vulnerable than the ordinary person made homeless.
13. It would be unusual for the Ombudsman to exercise discretion when there is a specific remedy in law. Mr D had the opportunity to appeal to the County Court and challenge any point of law he felt the Council had not considered. The County Court can provide a remedy. It has powers the Ombudsman does not have to quash, vary, or confirm the Council’s decision. It would be reasonable to expect Mr D to appeal to the County Court about his complaint. That was the appropriate body to rule on legal issues.
14. The Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) gives people a right to ask a Council to provide all the documents it holds on them or someone they have the right to get information for. This is a ‘subject access request’ (SAR). Mr D says the Council has failed to comply with his SAR and he would like his records adjusting once he receives the information. Parliament set up the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to deal with DPA complaints. The ICO is better suited to decide if the Council had failed to comply with a SAR. It would be reasonable to expect Mr D to complain to the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable to expect Mr D to exercise his right of appeal to the County Court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman