Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Mr X did not qualify for homelessness assistance. Mr X could reasonably have used his right to go to court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to treat him and his family as threatened with homelessness and instead said it had no homelessness duty.

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 to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
3. The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X contacted the Council having received notice to quit from his landlord. The Council decided it had no homelessness duty because it understood the landlord had not taken court action to enforce the notice and did not intend to do so. The Council told Mr X about his right to seek a review of that decision.
7. When a Council makes a decision such as this, the applicant (here, Mr X) has the right to ask the Council to review its decision. An applicant who remains dissatisfied after the Council’s review can appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204) So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies.
8. The law expressly provides this route for challenging such decisions, so we normally expect people to use it. The court can make a binding decision and overturn the Council’s decision if it sees fit, unlike the Ombudsman. There might be a potential cost to court action, but that is not in itself automatically a reason to consider court action unreasonable, and applicants can get help with court costs if they are eligible. Mr X argues the Council made an error in law and wrongly applied the law when it closed his homelessness application. Those are points of law the court could consider. For these reasons, I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use his right to seek a review and then go to court if necessary.
9. It is not clear if Mr X did use his right to go to court. If he did not, I consider it would have been reasonable to do so. If he did go to court about this, the restriction in paragraph 3 would prevent us investigating the complaint. Either way, we shall not investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because of the right to go to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman