Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a woman’s homelessness case. This is because the woman has statutory review and potential court appeal rights she can use to dispute the Council’s decision that it does not owe her a housing duty. In addition, there is no sign of fault concerning its handling of other matters in her case.

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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal. (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 Miss B provided with her complaint and her comments when we spoke on the telephone. I also considered information the Council provided about Miss B’s case. In addition, I took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Housing Act 1996 gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their homelessness application. This includes a decision the person is intentionally homeless. If someone wants to challenge a negative review decision they can appeal to the county court if there is a point of law to argue.
6. Miss B asked the Council to review its decision in her case, and it is currently considering the matter. If the Council upholds its decision following the review, I see no reason why Miss B should not be expected to appeal to the county court if she considers the review decision is wrong in law.
7. In any case, 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 B’s homelessness application or force the Council to change its decision.
8. Miss B complained about the behaviour of the officers who attended when she was evicted from her emergency accommodation. But I do not see that we enough grounds to pursue this matter. In particular I consider it unlikely we would find sufficient objective evidence about the events to justify a finding against the Council. In addition, the Council was ultimately entitled to change the locks having ended its emergency accommodation duty in Miss B’s case and having given her reasonable notice of the eviction date.
9. Where someone has asked for a review councils may continue to provide them with accommodation until the review is completed, but they do not have to do so. The Council said it considered providing Miss B with discretionary accommodation but decided this was not justified. We may not find fault with councils about their discretionary decisions as long as they have given due consideration to the matter. I see no suggestion of fault in the Council’s decision-making in Miss B’s case.
10. Miss B said she had not received a PHP and the decision letters from the Council as required by law. But the Council has provided copies of two PHP’s and relevant decision letters it issued in her case which appear to be correctly addressed. In the circumstances I do not see we likely to find evidence to justify finding fault with the Council for not sending out these documents.
11. When Miss B was in emergency accommodation she had Band B priority for social housing under the Devon Home Choice scheme. She queried why her priority dropped to Band D after she was evicted as she continued to be homeless. However the Devon Home Choice policy makes clear that Band B can only apply to people the Council still owes a homelessness duty to. The policy says Band D applies to homeless people not owed a duty, unless they have other needs.
12. We cannot fault a council over its banding decisions if correctly applies its allocations policy. I see no reason to suggest the Council has not followed its allocations policy so far in Miss B’s case. But in any event the Council said it is currently reassessing her application in view of her changed circumstances. So Miss B has an opportunity to provide it with more information about any other housing needs she may have which may qualify her for a higher priority band.

Final decision

13. Miss B complained about the way the Council handled her homelessness case. But we will not investigate this matter. This is because Miss B has statutory review and appeal rights she can use to challenge the Council’s homelessness decision in her case. In addition there is no sign of fault by the Council in other respects to justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman