Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end interim accommodation provided to Mr X and its decision that he is non-priority homeless. It was reasonable from r X to ask for a further review of the decision and appeal to the court if it is unsuccessful.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council ended his accommodation and evicting him form it in his absence which resulted in the loss of his possessions. He says he is currently homeless and the Council should re-house him.

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))

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 says the Council ended his interim accommodation whilst he was staying with his brother who subsequently died. When he returned he found he had been evicted and the locks had been changed. The owners of the building had disposed of his possessions.
6. The Council told him that the building was being re-possessed by its owners in December 2023 and the tenants were contacted by the Council to arrange to be decanted. Mr X was found to be no longer living there and the Council hand-delivered a notice to quit the property but received no response. The new owners took back their building and changed the locks.
7. When Mr X contacted the Council in February it told him that it had now determined his homelessness case and ended its Relief duty because he was considered to be non-priority homeless. The Council says it made arrangements with the owner and Mr X for him to collect his belongings by 14 February but he failed to take action and they were subsequently disposed of.
8. Mr X asked the Council for a s.202 statutory review of its decisions to cancel his interim accommodation and that he was non-priority homeless. He also made a formal complaint to the Council which was not upheld. In May Mr X submitted a complaint to us before the review of his case had been completed.
9. When the Council completed its re-assessment of the case it issue da new non-priority homeless decision and again told Mr X that the relief duty had ended. It advised him he had a right to seek a further review of the new decisions within 21 days. Mr X did not do so, although this may have been because he had already submitted a complaint to us.
10. I have asked the Council to consider using its discretion to allow Mr X to submit a new s.202 review request and for it to advise him of his appeal rights if the outcome is not successful.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end interim accommodation provided to Mr X and its decision that he is non-priority homeless. It was reasonable from Mr X to ask for a further review of the decision and appeal to the court if it is unsuccessful.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman