Summary: We shall not investigate Mr X’s complaint about homelessness matters. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to use his court appeal right when the Council ended its homelessness duty. Other parts of his complaint are not significant enough in themselves to investigate.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the handling of his homelessness application, especially the Council ending its homelessness duty to him. He says this caused distress and difficulties for him and his child.

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. 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)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr X an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council ended its homelessness duty because it believed Mr X had refused a suitable offer of housing. Mr X says he did not refuse the offer. He also argued the offer was not suitable. Mr X’s solicitors requested a review of the decision. The Council’s review confirmed its decision to end its homelessness duty. It told Mr X of his right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. The Council copied its review decision letter to Mr X’s solicitors.
8. The questions of whether the offer was suitable and whether Mr X refused it relate to the legal grounds on which the Council could end its duty. Therefore those are points of law on which Mr X had the right to go to court. That means the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to the complaint about the Council ending its homelessness duty.
9. The law expressly provides this appeal right for such matters, so the Ombudsman normally expects people to go to court. Mr X had solicitors at the time of the review decision. Advice on such matters is available from solicitors’ firms, law centres, advice agencies and homelessness organisations. I have seen no good reason why Mr X could not reasonably have used his appeal right when he had it. So we shall not investigate the complaint about the Council ending its duty.
10. Mr X also says a Council officer was disrespectful when she first spoke to him about his homelessness application and the Council was difficult and delayed dealing with him. We normally expect such complaints to complete the Council’s complaints procedure before coming to us. I have not seen evidence of a complaint to the Council about either of those points. In any event, it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view on the tone in which the officer dealt with Mr X. Furthermore, I do not consider the alleged disrespect or the Council’s alleged subsequent delays in themselves caused Mr X a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation. Nor is there a significant enough public interest in pursuing those points. Those points are peripheral to the main reason Mr X complained to us, which was the Council’s ending its homelessness duty. For these reasons, it would be disproportionate to devote time and public money to investigating them.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We shall not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right to go to court on the central point (the Council ending its homelessness duty) and there are not strong enough grounds to investigate the other points.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman