Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to assess a woman’s homelessness case. This is because the woman has separate review and appeal rights she can use to dispute the Council’s decision that she is not homeless.

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, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal. (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 Ms X provided and the Council’s responses to 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’ main decisions on their application. This includes a decision that someone is not homeless and, as a result, the council in question does not have a duty to assess their case or help them find accommodation. Applicants have 21 days after receiving a decision letter to ask for a review by the council.
6. If a council upholds its original decision following a review and the applicant wants to challenge the review decision, they may appeal to the county court on a point of law.
7. Ms X recently approached the Council saying she was homeless. The Council then asked Ms X to provide certain information about where she had been staying in recent years. Ms X said she provided the proof the Council asked for. But the Council said this information was not sufficient to show she was now homeless. After Ms X failed to meet the Council’s deadline for providing the requested information, it issued a decision that she was not homeless and closed her case.
8. But we will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about this matter. First, the Act gives homeless applicants specific review and appeal rights regarding councils’ decisions in their case. As a result we usually expect people to use those statutory rights. In Ms X’s case I see no reason why she should not be expected to go through the review process, and if necessary appeal to court, if she considers the Council’s decision about her homelessness is flawed.
9. Second, unlike the Council and the courts, we have no powers to make or overturn homelessness decisions. So we cannot impose our own view about Ms X’s homelessness claim or force the Council to change its decision in her case. As a result we also cannot achieve the main outcome Ms X wants from her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council unfairly failed to assess her homelessness application on the basis that she was not homeless. This is because Ms X has statutory review and potential court appeal rights which it is reasonable for her to use if she wants to challenge the Council’s decision in her case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman