Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with him when he was homeless. This is because he had a right of appeal to County Court regarding the Council’s decision on his homelessness. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to restrict his access to its services as there is no evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to help him when he became homeless. He says the Council told lies about his conduct and banned him from accessing its services. Mr X says he has been caused significant distress as a result of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued Mr X with a decision saying he was not homeless as he had accommodation available to him elsewhere. The Council told Mr X he had a right to request a review of its decision, however he did not do so.
8. After a council has issued a review decision about someone’s homelessness the person may appeal against the decision to county court on a point of law. We cannot investigate this complaint as Mr X was able to ask for a review of the Council’s decision and then take the matter to court if he remained unhappy.
9. We have the power to discretion to consider complaints where a person has a right of appeal to court where we decide it was not reasonable to expect that person to exercise their right of appeal. However, in this case I can see no reason why Mr X could not have asked for a review of the Council’s decision and then taken the matter to court following the review. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
10. The Council says Mr X threatened a member of staff and so it banned him from accessing its services directly for a period of 6 months. The Council said Mr X could still access its services via a friend or third party such as advice organisation. I have considered the Council’s notes made on the day Mr X made the alleged threat and Mr X’s response to the Council’s letter banning him from the service.
11. The Council’s records show Mr X told an officer “something bad” would happen to the officer if he was not housed. Mr X did not deny this in his response to the Council’s letter but he asked the Council to provide evidence of a threat.
12. We will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely we would find fault with the actions of the Council. The Council is entitled to restrict access to its services for people who threaten staff. The Council has a record of a threat being made and Mr X did not refute the allegation that he had told the officer “something bad” would happen if he was not housed. Mr X told the Council he recorded his telephone calls and it was open to him to provide a recording if he disputed the Council’s versions of events.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had a right of appeal to County Court regarding the Council’s decision on his homelessness. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to restrict his access to its services as there is no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman