Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that he is not in priority need and its refusal to provide him with temporary accommodation. This is because he had the right to appeal the Council’s decision and it was reasonable for him to have appealed. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision that he is not in priority need and its refusal to provide him with temporary accommodation.

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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X approached the Council as homeless.
7. In September 2023, the Council issued its decision that Mr X was not in priority need. The Council’s decision letter provided the rationale for why the Council did not consider Mr X to be in priority need. The Council also told Mr X because he was not in priority need, it had no duty to provide temporary accommodation. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision.
8. In December 2023, the Council issued its review decision. The Council upheld its decision that Mr X was not in priority need and outlined its consideration of each of the reasons Mr X had put forward as to why he was in priority need. The decision letter outlined Mr X’s right to appeal its decision.
9. An investigation is not justified as Mr X had the right to appeal to the County court if he believed the Council’s decision was wrong. I cannot see any good reason for why Mr X could not have appealed.
10. As the Council has decided Mr X is not in priority need, it does not need to provide Mr X with temporary accommodation. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had the right to appeal the Council’s decision and it was reasonable for him to have appealed. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman