Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s intention to end its homelessness duty in a man’s case. This is because the man will have a right of appeal to the county court concerning the Council’s final decision, and anyway we cannot achieve the outcome he wants from his complaint.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. The law says we normally cannot 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

4. I considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Housing Act 1996 (‘the Act’) gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their application. This includes a decision that the applicant is intentionally homeless and, therefore, not entitled to the main housing duty under the Act. If an applicant wants to challenge a negative review decision they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
6. Mr B applied to the Council for housing assistance as he was homeless. However the Council subsequently decided that Mr B was intentionally homeless because of the circumstances in which he left his last settled accommodation.
7. Mr B asked for a review of the Council’s finding. During the course of the review the Council sent Mr B a letter saying it was minded to uphold its original intentional homelessness decision. The letter also invited Mr B to send further representations before a final decision is made.
8. Mr B complained to us at that point. But I consider that we should not investigate his complaint about this matter.
9. First, Mr B still has an opportunity to send his objections to the Council’s proposed decision before it reaches a final view in his case. So there is still a possibility of changing the Council’s mind.
10. Second, the law says we normally cannot investigate a complaint where someone could take the matter to court. If the Council does finally decide to uphold its intentional homelessness finding Mr B will then have a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law. I see no reason why he should not be expected to use his court appeal rights if he considers the review decision is flawed. In particular, I understand Mr B has access to professionals who could give him further advice and support in this regard.
11. Third, unlike the courts we have no powers to overturn homelessness decisions or rule on points of law. So we cannot make our own decision about Mr B’s homelessness application or force the Council to change its decision. Therefore, as Mr B wants the Council to reconsider its intentional homelessness finding in his case, I do not see we could achieve the outcome he is seeking from his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council is unreasonably minded to uphold its decision that he is intentionally homeless. This is because Mr B will have court appeal rights he can use to challenge a negative review decision if it is legally flawed and anyway, we cannot achieve the outcome he wants from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman