Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s homeless application. It was reasonable for him to challenge the outcome by way of an appeal to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his homeless application. He says it failed to keep sufficient contact during the Relief Duty period and did not take his medical vulnerability into account when it decided that he was non-priority homeless.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied to the Council as homeless in September 2022. The Council accepted the Relief homeless duty to him which involved it trying to secure accommodation for 56 days following his eviction by a relative. He says he found it difficult to contact his case worker who then was replaced by a new officer. After 56 days the Council should have issued a final homeless decision but was unable to do so for some weeks.
6. The Council issued a final decision in early April once Mr X made contact with it after it was unable to call him. The decision was that he was non-priority homeless and no full housing duty was owed to him. Mr X asked for the decision to be reviewed. The Council issued a ‘minded to’ decision in June and a final review outcome in July. The decision confirmed that he was non-priority homeless and that there was insufficient evidence that he was vulnerable with reasonable preference for housing.
7. The Council advised Mr X about his right to appeal the decision to the County Court within 21 days and that he should seek advice form a housing aid centre, Citizens Advice or a solicitor.
8. When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members when there is no fault. In this case there was some delay in issuing a final decision to Mr X after the 56 days relief duty period expired. However, the outcome was that he was non-priority and this was upheld by the review so there is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice caused by the delay.
9. Mr X was given advice about how to appeal the decision if he believes it was flawed.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s homeless application. It was reasonable for him to challenge the outcome by way of an appeal to the County Court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman