Summary: We will not investigate this complaint as it is fundamentally about homelessness decisions on which Miss X could reasonably have used her review and appeal rights

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council stopped treating her as homeless without properly considering her circumstances and expects her to remain at her current home until she bids successfully for social housing. She says this caused distress and leaves her feeling unable to leave her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence from the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Someone with accommodation can be legally homeless if it is not reasonable to continue occupying their accommodation. Miss X believes this applies to her family because of the impact of alleged antisocial behaviour. She applied as homeless in 2021. The Council said it owed her the relief duty. That meant the Council believed Miss X and her family were homeless. Miss X says the Council then did not help her or properly consider her circumstances. She is dissatisfied the Council stated it no longer had a homelessness duty and closed her application on 21 February 2022.
7. Essentially, Miss X is unhappy the Council did not make different homelessness decision, keep her homelessness application open and offer her temporary accommodation pending her getting long-term social housing through the Council’s housing register. So, Miss X really disagrees with the February 2022 homelessness decision. She had the right to ask the Council within 21 days to review that decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) The Council’s letter of 21 February 2022 explained that right.
8. Miss X told me she requested a ‘reconsideration’ and was advised to make a new homelessness application, which she then did. However, the new homelessness application was in November 2022. That does not seem to result from a formal review request within 21 days of 21 February 2022. If Miss X was unhappy with the February 2022 decision, she could have sought a review, which would have resulted in a formal written review decision from the Council. If the review decision was not in Miss X’s favour, she would then have had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204). So the restriction in paragraph 3 applies.
9. I understand Miss X has mental health problems and finds her living circumstances difficult. However, she was able to understand she was dissatisfied with the Council’s position and she could have sought help if necessary to challenge the decision. Overall, I consider it reasonable to expect Miss X to have sought a formal review and, if dissatisfied with the result, to have gone to court.
10. Miss X’s second homelessness application was in November 2022. The Council decided on 5 December 2022 Miss X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness, so it closed that application. Miss X is evidently also unhappy with that decision because she believes the Council should be treating her as homeless and giving her services accordingly. The December 2022 decision letter also told Miss X about her review right. Therefore the same considerations apply as with the February 2022 decision. So, for the reasons given above, I consider Miss X could reasonably have sought a review of the December 2022 decision and then, if necessary, taken court action about the Council’s position.
11. Miss X is on the Council’s register for social housing. If she believes she should have higher priority on the register (for example, due to her living circumstances or her or her children’s health), she could ask the Council for more priority. She would have the right to ask the Council to review any decision it makes about her housing register priority. If Miss X were to remain dissatisfied after completing that review procedure, she could then complain to us about her housing register priority. However, that is a separate matter from the current complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is fundamentally about homelessness decisions on which Miss X could reasonably have used her review and appeal rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman