Summary: A woman complained that the Council has unreasonably decided it has no duty to house her as she is intentionally homeless. But we will not investigate this matter because the woman has a right of appeal to the county court she can use if she wishes to challenge the Council’s decision. In addition, it is very unlikely we could achieve the outcome she is seeking in that respect.

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 Miss C provided with her 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’ key decisions on their homelessness application. This includes a decision that a council does not owe someone the main housing duty under the Act because they are intentionally homeless. If an applicant wants to challenge a negative review decision they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
6. Miss C applied to the Council as homeless earlier this year. In response it provided her with emergency accommodation while it considered her application.
7. However the Council subsequently decided Miss C was intentionally homeless due to the circumstances in which she left her last settled accommodation. Miss C disagreed and asked for a review of the decision. But following a review the Council upheld its original decision and, as a result, gave her notice to leave her emergency accommodation.
8. But we will not investigate Miss C’s complaint. In particular, the law says we normally cannot investigate a complaint where the person could take the matter to court. The Council’s recent review decision letter clearly informs Miss C that she can appeal to the county court within 21 days if she wants to dispute the decision. I see no reason why Miss C should not be expected to use her right of appeal if she considers the Council’s review decision is legally flawed.
9. In addition, unlike the Council and the courts, we have no powers to overturn homelessness decisions or rule on points of law. So we cannot reach our own finding about Miss C’s homelessness application or force the Council to change its view in her case. In the circumstances, it is highly unlikely we could achieve the outcome Miss C wants from her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss C’s complaint that the Council has unfairly decided she is intentionally homeless. This is because Miss C has court appeal rights she can use to dispute the Council’s decision if there is a point of law at issue. In addition, it is very unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome for her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman