Summary: A homelessness applicant complained about the Council’s failure to carry out a review of its decision that she is not homeless. But the Ombudsman has no reason to start an investigation of this complaint. This is because the Council has now issued a review decision and the applicant is satisfied with that outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss B, complained that the Council had failed to deal with her request for a review of its decision that she is not homeless. As a remedy for her complaint Miss B wanted the Council to make a review decision.

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 an investigation if, for example, we consider the Council has already taken suitable action to address the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Miss B provided with her complaint. I also considered Miss B’s comments when we spoke on the telephone, and her response to my initial views in her case. In addition I took account of the Council’s response to my enquiries about Miss B’s complaint.

What I found

4. By law, homelessness applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. This period can be extended, but only if the applicant agrees in writing.
5. Earlier this year Miss B applied to the Council as homeless. However the Council decided Miss B was not homeless as she still had rights to occupy a property where she was a tenant.
6. On 1 July 2020 Miss B asked the Council to review its decision. But the Council had still not made a review decision by the end of September. In addition it had not asked Miss B if it could extend the eight-week period for making a decision. As a result Miss B complained to the Ombudsman.
7. I made enquiries to the Council about its progress in considering Miss B’s review request. Shortly afterwards, on 14 October, the Council sent Miss B a ‘minded to’ letter which set out its provisional view about her review request. The Council also apologised to Miss B for its delay in responding to her.
8. After allowing Miss B an opportunity to make further representations, the Council issued a final review decision on 26 October.

Analysis

9. The Council should have dealt with Miss B’s review request within eight weeks, which meant it should have issued its review decision by the last week of August. But it did not make a final decision until the last week of October. Therefore it appears the Council was at fault because of an unreasonable delay of around two months in dealing with Miss B’s case.
10. However, I consider the Council took appropriate action to resolve Miss B’s complaint once we had brought the matter to its attention. In particular the Council acknowledged, and apologised for, its delay. In addition it proceeded to issue a review decision in Miss B’s case within a few weeks.
11. The main remedy Miss B was seeking for her complaint was for the Council to make a review decision in her case. Now that she has received a decision, I do not see there is reason for us to pursue her complaint any further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. Miss B complained about the Council’s failure to carry out a review of its decision that she was not homeless. It appears the Council was at fault because of an unreasonable delay in dealing with Miss B’s case. But the Ombudsman does not have cause to start an investigation of this matter. This is because the Council has now issued a review decision, and apologised for its delay in doing so, and I consider this is a suitable remedy for Miss B’s complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman