Summary: A man complained the Council had unreasonably refused to accept he had a local connection with its area when he applied as homeless. But we will not investigate this matter because the man had a right of review, and potential court appeal rights, he could have used to dispute the Council’s decision. In any case, we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council about its decision.

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 a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way a council made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided about his complaint. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Housing Act 1996 (‘the Act’) says that where someone applies to a council because they are homeless, the council can look at whether they have a local connection to its area. The Act also says a council can refer someone to a different council if they do not have a local connection with it but they do with the other council’s area.
6. Where someone has separate rights of review and appeal about the issues in their complaint, we normally expect them to use those rights.
7. The Act gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their application. This includes a decision about whether the conditions for a referral to another council have been met. If someone wants to challenge a negative review decision by the council they can appeal to the county court if they have a point of law to argue.
8. By law, when Mr X received the Council’s decision he had 21 days in which to ask for a review. I see no reason why Mr X should not be expected to have put in a review request in that time. But the advice agency helping him was two days’ late in asking for a review and the Council decided the request was out of time.
9. A decision about whether to accept a late review request is entirely at the Council’s discretion. The Council evidently considered the agency’s request but turned it down. It was open to the Council to make this decision. In the circumstances I do not see we are in a position to challenge the Council’s decision as there is no sign of fault in its decision making.
10. But even if we decided to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision concerning his local connection and referral, I consider it very unlikely we could justify finding fault with it regarding this matter.
11. The Act says one of the ways a person can have a local connection with a council is through family associations, and the Local Authorities Agreement between councils says family associations normally arise when an applicant has parents, adult children or siblings resident in the area for at least five years. The statutory Homelessness Code of Guidance also says family associations may extend to other family members and councils should determine this matter with regard to the fact-specific circumstances of the individual case.
12. Therefore it is clear that there is nothing in the legislation or guidance which says that a school age child necessarily confers a local connection. So the Council was not bound to follow Mr X’s view and had to make up its own mind regarding this matter. In addition I note the Council’s decision letter to Mr X regarding local connection set out its case with reference to the relevant legislation and guidance and came to a reasoned conclusion. As a result I do not see we would be likely to find fault with the Council’s decision making in this respect.

Final decision

13. Mr X complained the Council had unreasonably refused to accept he had a local connection to its area under the law on homelessness. However we will not investigate this matter. This is because Mr X had statutory review rights he could have used to challenge the Council’s decision. In addition, there is no sign of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement in Mr X’s case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman