Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homeless application and about sharing his personal information with third parties. This is because it is reasonable for him to use his right of review and then appeal to the County Court. In addition, there is another body better placed to deal with his complaint about the Council’s handling of his personal data.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his homeless application. He says the Council has not supported or communicated with him. He also complains the Council shared his personal information with third parties.

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. We investigate 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 an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. During its complaint investigation, the Council noted it accepted a duty to prevent Mr X’s homelessness in November 2022. This was because Mr X’s landlord had given notice to Mr X. The Council told Mr X he did not meet the criteria for being in priority need and therefore this meant the Council would have no duty to provide him with interim accommodation should he become homeless.
7. The Council liaised with Mr X’s landlord to see if it could prevent Mr X’s homelessness. This included an offer of a financial inventive to allow Mr X to remain in the property. The Council also sent Mr X emails about viewings of available properties and nominated Mr X for several private rental properties.
8. The Council ended the prevention duty and accepted the relief duty in December 2022.
9. In January 2023, the Council wrote to Mr X to end the relief duty. The Council said it closed Mr X’s application as it had lost contact with Mr X.
10. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it closed Mr X’s homeless application incorrectly. The Council said there was no evidence the housing officer tried to contact Mr X in January and therefore his application should not have been closed based on no contact. The Council said it should have closed Mr X’s application under a no priority need decision. The Council said it would issue Mr X with the correct letter detailing this decision.
11. An investigation is not justified as Mr X has the right to request a review of the Council’s decision that he is not in priority need. Mr X then has the right to appeal the Councill’s decision in Court and it is reasonable to expect him to do this.
12. In addition, Mr X’s complaint that the Council shared his personal information with third parties is better dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This is because the ICO deals with complaints about data handling.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to use his right of review and then appeal to the County Court. In addition, there is another body better placed to deal with his complaint about the Council’s handling of his personal data.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman