Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to help a homelessness applicant and its delay carrying out a review in his case. This is mainly because the Council has now decided the review and the applicant has a right of appeal to the county court he can use to challenge that decision.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an investigation, or
• there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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 considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint and comments from the Council. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Housing Act 1996 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 the main housing duty because the person does not have a priority need.
6. 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 the council takes more than eight weeks to complete the review, the applicant may appeal on a point of law to the county court.
7. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
8. Mr B asked for a review in April 2023 after the Council decided he did not have a priority need. The Council recently issued a review decision upholding its original finding in Mr B’s case. So, it still has no duty to house him.
9. Mr B is unhappy with the Council’s review decision. In particular he says it has left out important facts and has not taken proper account of his serious health conditions.
10. But we will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about these matters. In particular, the Council’s review decision makes clear that Mr B can appeal to the county court within 21 days of receiving the decision letter if he wants to challenge it. I see no reason why Mr B should not be expected to use his right of appeal if he considers the Council’s review decision is legally flawed.
11. In addition, even if Mr B is advised he does not have a legal case for an appeal, it seems very unlikely we would then find grounds to fault the Council’s decision making. Further, unlike the Council and the courts, we have no powers to overturn homelessness decisions or rule on points of law. Therefore, we cannot reach our own finding about Mr B’s homelessness application or make the Council change its view in his case.
12. The Council took around eight months to decide Mr B’s review request. This is clearly far longer than the eight weeks set in law. So, although the Council claims there were mitigating factors, it appears likely we would find fault with it due to its unreasonable delay.
13. However, I am not convinced we would be justified in investigating this matter. In particular the Council has now decided the review which resolves Mr B’s complaint about its failure to make a decision. And although Mr B is likely to have suffered some frustration and uncertainty in waiting for the decision, there is no reason to suggest the decision would have been any different if the Council had made it earlier. So, the delay has not materially affected Mr B’s housing status, which remains the same as in April.
14. In addition, it is worth noting that Mr B also had the possibility of appealing to the county court about the Council’s delay in deciding his review request.
15. Mr B is unhappy the Council has not provided him with emergency accommodation at any stage, including during the review. But it was for the Council to decide if it had reason to believe Mr B was eligible, homeless and may have a priority need and would, therefore, be entitled to interim accommodation. The Council evidently considered it did not have reason to believe Mr B had a priority need. It was also a matter for the Council’s discretion about whether to provide Mr B with accommodation during the review.
16. We may not question the merits of councils’ decisions if there no fault in the way those decisions are made. I do not see we are likely to find evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making about accommodating Mr B which would warrant us investigating this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has unreasonably failed to help him as a homelessness applicant and about its delay in deciding his review request regarding its decision not to house him. This is mainly because the Council has now decided the review and Mr B has court appeal rights he could use to dispute its review decision if there is a point of law at issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman