Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of homeless applications submitted by Mr X. It was reasonable for him to challenge the Council’s decisions by way of a statutory review and by appeals to the County Court if this had been unsuccessful.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decisions on his homeless applications in 2023. He says he made two homeless applications and the Council told him he was non-priority and that it has no duty to rehouse him under the main homelessness duty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says he approached the Council as homeless in 2023 following bail conditions being applied which prevented him from being able to stay in his shared accommodation. The Council assessed his application and its decision was that he was non-priority homeless and that it accepted him for the relief homelessness duty under the Housing Act 1996. This means the Council had to assist him for 56 days in seeking alternative accommodation but that he was not entitled to interim accommodation. The Council advised Mr X of his right to have a review of its decision within 21 days.
7. Mr X complained about the decision and the Council later accepted that it had delayed issuing him with the personal housing plan beyond the statutory time limit but issued this shortly afterwards. In November 2023 the Council informed him that the relief duty had ended and that it had no further duty to assist him finding accommodation and he remained non-priority homeless. Again, the Council advised him of his right to seek a statutory review within 21 days if he wished to challenge the decision.
8. Mr X did not seek a review but in December submitted a new homeless application. The Council refused to accept this as a new homelessness case because his circumstances were unchanged from its last decision. It advised him to seek a judicial review or complaint to us because there is no review right for this decision.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. In this case the Council made decisions within the homelessness legislation and advised Mr X of his rights to have a review of the decisions if he disagreed. Any review carries further rights of appeal to the County Court and we would have advised Mr X to use this remedy if he had complained to us at the time.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of homeless applications submitted by Mr X. It was reasonable for him to challenge the Council’s decisions by way of a statutory review and by appeals to the County Court if this had been unsuccessful.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman