Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s homelessness application. This is because Miss X had the right to go to court.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council deciding she was not homeless so it would not house her.

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, or to have gone, to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council has must arrange accommodation for some people who are homeless. Someone can be homeless if they have somewhere to live but it is not reasonable to continue occupying the accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(3)) If someone disagrees with the Council’s decision on their homelessness application, they can ask the Council to review its decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the applicant remains dissatisfied after the review, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law within 21 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
6. Miss X told the Council she believed she and her children could not safely remain at their privately rented home after an incident where the front door was damaged and not replaced. The Council therefore considered whether it had a homelessness duty to Miss X. It decided it did not because it did not judge Miss X to be homeless. Miss X, through her solicitor, used her right to ask the Council to review that decision. The Council’s review did not change the Council’s position and it maintained it did not regard Miss X as homeless, so it had no duty to her. The Council’s review decision letter on 23 November 2021 explained Miss X’s right to appeal to the court within 21 days.
7. Miss X is dissatisfied with the Council’s decision. This matter concerns whether the Council has correctly interpreted and applied the relevant parts of the law about homelessness. Miss X had the right to go to court on a point of law, so the restriction in paragraph 2 applies.
8. I have considered whether it would have been reasonable to expect Miss X to go to court. As the law expressly provides that right for situations such as this, we would normally expect someone to use the right to go to court. I note Miss X had access to legal advice from her solicitor. In London, advice about the matter could also be obtained from homelessness organisations and advice agencies. There might be a cost to taking legal action, depending on whether Miss X would have qualified for legal help. However, the possible cost of court action is not in itself automatically a reason for the Ombudsman to investigate when someone could have gone to court. Overall, I consider it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for Miss X to challenge the Council’s decision in court when she had that right.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to use her right to go to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman