Summary: A woman complained about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty in her case and its refusal to accept another homelessness application. But we will not investigate these matters because the woman had statutory review and potential court appeal rights she could have used to challenge the Council’s decision, and there is no sign of fault on its part regarding the application issue.

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, for example, we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Miss X provided with her complaint and her comments when we spoke on the telephone. I also considered information the Council provided about Miss X’s case. In addition, I took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Housing Act 1996 gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their homelessness application. This includes a decision to end its housing duty. If an applicant wants to challenge a negative review decision they can appeal to the county court if there is a point of law to argue.
5. Where a council has ended its homelessness duty in a person’s case, that person can make a fresh application to the same council if they are still homeless. In that situation the council needs to decide if there are any new facts which make the new application different to the earlier one. If there are no new facts, or if the differences are trivial, the council does not have to consider the new application and it can rely on its previous decision.
6. Miss X and her daughter applied to the Council as they were homeless. The Council accepted it had a duty to try and relieve their homelessness and it placed them in emergency accommodation.
7. Later on Miss X made a successful bid for a social housing property managed by a housing association and she was offered the tenancy. The Council told Miss X that its housing duty in her case would end whether or not she accepted the offer.
8. As Miss X did not sign up for the tenancy, the Council wrote to say it had ended its housing duty in her case and it gave her notice to leave her emergency accommodation. The letter also informed Miss X about her right to ask the Council for a review of its decision within 21 days.
9. Sometime later Miss X asked for a review. But by then it was well past the 21-day period for making review requests and the Council declined to carry out a late review.
10. Since then Miss X has tried to make new homelessness applications to the Council because she has not yet found any settled accommodation. However the Council has so far refused to accept a fresh application on the basis there has been no material change in her circumstances since her previous application.
11. But we will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about these matters. In particular, the law already provides a system for homelessness applicants to dispute a council’s decision in their case by way of an internal review followed by the possibility of an appeal to the county court. The Council clearly informed Miss X about her review rights and I consider it reasonable to expect her to have used those rights by making an on-time review request.
12. In addition, unlike the Council or the courts, we have no powers to overturn homelessness decisions or rule on points of law. So we cannot make our own finding about Miss X’s homelessness case or force the Council to change its decision. Therefore, I do not see we could achieve the outcome she wants in this respect.
13. I also see no sign of fault in the Council’s refusal so far to accept another homelessness application from Miss X. From the information provided I consider it has been reasonably entitled to conclude there are no new facts about her circumstances to warrant a fresh assessment in her case.

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council unreasonably decided to end its homelessness duty in her case and has unreasonably refused to take a new homelessness application from her. This is because Miss X had statutory review and appeal rights she could have used to challenge the Council’s decision, and there is no sign of fault in its refusal to accept a fresh application in her case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman