Summary: Miss X complains about the Council removing her from her temporary accommodation in 2017. She wants compensation for the adverse effects on her health and also the loss of her possessions. We will not investigate as it was reasonable to expect Miss X to use her legal rights to request a review of the Council’s decision and then appeal to the county court.

The complaint

1. In short, Miss X complains about the Council’s decision in 2017 to remove her medical priority from her housing application after she left a mental health hospital to move back in the community. She says she was forced to leave her accommodation and move far away.
2. Miss X says the Council admitted a few months later that it had been wrong to remove her medical priority. But by this time, she had moved far away.
3. Miss X says she lost personal possessions and furniture she could not take to her new home. She also says she has suffered badly - physically and mentally - due to being forced to leave the property. She would like compensation for her suffering.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a @council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
10. Council will apply four tests to decide what, if any, duty it owes to a homeless applicant. Councils will make inquiries to find out if the applicant is:
1. eligible for assistance;
2. homeless or threatened with homelessness;
3. in priority need (e.g. is vulnerable, has dependent children etc.);
4. not intentionally homeless.
11. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
12. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. This period can be extended but only if the applicant agrees in writing. If the applicant wishes to challenge the review decision, or if a council takes more than eight weeks to complete the review, they may appeal on a point of law to the County Court (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204)
13. I will not investigate as Miss X had a legal right to request a review of the Council’s decision and then refer the matter to court. It was reasonable to expect her to do this given she says she had support from the community mental health team and other agencies at the time. I do not see good reason to investigate now as I would have expected Miss X to use her legal rights of appeal given the seriousness of the matters she raises.
14. Further, there is another reason we will not investigate. This is because Miss X has made her complaint to us very late and not within the usual 12-month time frame of becoming aware of the complaint matters.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not investigate this complaint. It was reasonable to expect Miss X to have used her legal right to ask for a review of the Council’s decision and then appeal to the county court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman