Milton Keynes Council (21 009 700)
Category : Housing > Homelessness
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 18 Nov 2021
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty to the complainant. This is because there were appeal rights that the complainant could have used.
The complaint
- The complaint, who I will call Mr X, complains that the Council ended its homelessness duty because it considered he no longer had a priority need.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- In late September, the Council wrote to Mr X to inform him that it was ending its homelessness duty towards him because it no longer believed he had a priority need. The Council explained how Mr X could ask for a review of its decision.
- The Ombudsman cannot overturn a decision made by a council on a homelessness application. If the council has written to the applicant that they are not homeless, or not in a priority need group, and it has no duty to find them somewhere to live, we would usually expect them to use the review and appeal procedure to challenge that decision.
- I will not investigate this complaint because I see no reason why Mr X could not have used the review process available to him. If he had, and he disagreed with the outcome he could have appealed the matter in the county court.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to exercise his right to a review and could then have challenged the outcome in the county court.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman