Summary: We will not start an investigation of this complaint about the Council’s decision that it no longer had a homelessness duty in a man’s case. This is because the man had a right of appeal to court if he wanted to challenge the decision and, anyway, we cannot achieve the outcome he wants regarding the matter.

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 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’s representative provided about his complaint. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Housing Act 1996 (‘the Act’) says that where someone is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to help them avoid becoming homeless. This is called the ‘prevention duty’. A council can end this duty if, for example, 56 days have passed or the person becomes homeless.
6. If an eligible person is actually homeless, or their accommodation is considered unsuitable to live in, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to help them secure other accommodation. This is called the ‘relief duty’.
7. The Act also gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their homelessness application. This includes a decision to end the prevention or relief duties. If an applicant wants to challenge a negative review decision they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
8. Mr B made a homelessness application to the Council on the basis it was unreasonable for his family to stay in their flat because of overcrowding and the damaging effect the accommodation was having on their health. The Council then accepted a prevention duty in Mr B’s case.
9. But later the Council decided to end its duty on the basis it had taken reasonable steps to help Mr B for more than 56 days. It also decided the relief duty did not apply in his case because his accommodation was legally suitable and reasonable to continue to occupy.
10. Mr B’s representative asked for a review of the Council’s decision. But following the review the Council upheld its decision to end its prevention duty in his case.
11. However, we will not pursue Mr B’s complaint about this matter. First, the law says we normally cannot investigate a complaint where someone could take the issue to court. The Council’s review decision letter clearly informed Mr B that he could appeal to the county court within 21 days if he wanted to challenge the decision on a point of law. I see no reason why Mr B should not have used his right of appeal if he considered the review decision was wrong in law.
12. Second, unlike the Council and the courts, we have no powers to overturn homelessness decisions or rule on points of law. So we cannot make our own finding about Mr B’s homelessness case or force the Council to change its decision. As a result, I do not see we could achieve the outcome Mr B wants from his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council unreasonably decided to end its homelessness prevention duty and not accept a relief duty in his case. This is because Mr B had court appeal rights he could have used to dispute the Council’s decision on a point of law, and anyway we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman