Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty after deciding he was intentionally homeless. I ended this investigation because Mr X had a right of appeal which was reasonable for him to use and further investigation will unlikely achieve an outcome he is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council decided it had no duty to house him and his family after deciding he was intentionally homeless after he was forced to leave his settled accommodation and move to its area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• 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 spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided.
5. I considered the Council’s homelessness decision letter to Mr X
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered their comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (The Act) and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. If the council has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need, it must provide emergency accommodation until it has finished assessing the homelessness application if the applicant asks for it. An applicant will be in priority need if they have dependent children living with them.
9. If a council is satisfied an applicant is eligible for assistance and homeless then the council will owe the ‘relief duty’. This requires the council to take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person for at least six months.
10. The relief duty usually lasts 56 days. After this period, the council should decide whether it owes the applicant the main housing duty. It will owe the main housing duty if it is satisfied the applicant is eligible for assistance, in priority need and not intentionally homeless.
11. When a council decides a housing duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
12. 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 and a decision to bring the relief duty to an end. Applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of decisions with review rights. Council’s may consider a late review request if the applicant has a good reason for not asking for a review in time.
13. If an applicant wants to challenge a negative review decision, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.

What happened

14. Mr X lived with his adult children in settled accommodation in a different council area. In January 2023 Mr X left his home in the other council area following an incident and presented himself as homeless in the Council’s area.
15. The Council accepted a relief duty to help Mr X resolve his homelessness and provided the family with emergency accommodation in a hotel whilst it made enquiries about his housing situation.
16. At the start of April 2023 the Council wrote to Mr X and told him it was ending its duty to resolve his homelessness. The letter explained Mr X had lost his previous home in the other council area through his own actions and was therefore intentionally homeless. The letter told Mr X he had a separate right of review in relation to its decision to end the relief duty and its decision that he is intentionally homeless.
17. Mr X did not use his right of review. Instead, he complained to us.

Findings

18. I ended this investigation. This is because Mr X had a right of review to the Council’s decisions to end its relief duty and that he is intentionally homeless, and it was reasonable for him to use that review.
19. We are not an appeal body. We do not have powers to overturn homelessness decisions or rule on points of law. So we cannot reach a finding on Mr X’s homelessness application or direct the Council to change its view on his case. Therefore, further investigation is unlikely to achieve an outcome Mr X wants.
20. It is open for Mr X to ask the Council to consider a late review. If the Council’s decision remains the same, he can appeal to the county court if he believes the decision is legally flawed.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I ended this investigation because further investigation is unlikely to achieve an outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman