Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision she was intentionally homeless. It was reasonable for Miss X to use her internal review and then appeal rights to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Mr Y is Miss X’s legal representative. He complained on behalf of Miss X about how the Council dealt with her homelessness application. He said the Council wrongly decided Miss X was intentionally homeless, leaving her street homeless for over twelve months. He said Miss X had told the Council that her landlord was her ex-partner and had been making threats towards her. Mr Y said the Council had failed to respond to this complaint. He said it had also failed to refer Miss X to Children’s Social Care for support.
2. Miss X wants the Council to accept a homelessness duty towards her and provide her accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X approached the Council for homelessness assistance at the start of 2023. She said her landlord had served her a section 21 eviction notice. The Council reviewed the notice. It contacted Miss X and told her it was invalid. It advised her not to leave the property.
9. Miss X subsequently left. She initially stayed with a friend, but they asked her to leave. Miss X approached the Council; it accepted the relief duty. It provided Miss X interim accommodation. At the end of the relief duty period, the Council wrote to Miss X in May 2023. It said she was intentionally homeless, as she had not needed to leave her original property. It set out her right to ask for a section 202 review of that decision. It said that must be received within 21 days of its decision.
10. Mr Y contacted the Council in July 2023. He complained about the Council’s decision Miss Y was intentionally homeless. In that letter he asked the Council for a review of its decision. Mr Y also approached the Ombudsman.
11. The Council did not uphold the complaint. It did not consider the late review request. Mr Y said he did not receive that response. He returned to the Ombudsman in July 2024.
12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the homelessness support provided. Miss X had 21 days to ask the Council to complete a section 202 review. There is no evidence she did that. That would have been the appropriate means to challenge the Council’s intentionally homeless decision. She would have had a right of appeal to the County Court on the outcome of that review decision. Where the law expressly provides a legal route to challenge a Council’s decision, we expect a complainant to use it.
13. Mr Y said he did not receive a response to his July 2023 complaint and late review request. Given the Council has provided evidence of a complaint response, there is not enough evidence of fault to suggest it did not respond. It was reasonable for Mr Y to contact the Council further if he did not get a response to that late review request. I have seen no evidence he did that.
14. We will also not investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council has not accepted her most recent homelessness application. The Council has written to Miss X and said that she has not provided any materially different information for being homeless. Therefore, its intentionally homeless decision remains. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made that decision to justify our involvement.
15. The Council has referred Miss X to the County Council’s Children’s Service as Miss X had children. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it was appropriate for her to exercise her right to appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman