Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to process her request for a review of a decision about her homelessness application. We did not find the Council to be at fault because it followed legal precedent when it decided that Mrs X’s email was an expression of dissatisfaction, rather than a review request.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council incorrectly refused her request for a review of its decision that she was intentionally homeless.
2. She says this caused significant distress, leaving her street homeless.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed the evidence Mrs X sent me.
6. I considered information provided by the Council.
7. I considered the relevant law and guidance, as set out below.
8. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness – Housing Act 1996

9. Part 7 of the 1996 Act sets out the powers and duties of housing authorities where people apply to them for accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation in cases of homelessness or threatened homelessness.

The relief duty

10. If a council is satisfied someone is homeless and eligible for assistance it must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end (usually after 56 days), it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Decisions and reviews

12. Housing authorities must provide written notifications to applicants when they reach certain decisions about their case, and the reasons behind any decisions that are against the applicant’s interests. Applicants can ask the housing authority to review most aspects of their decisions, and, if still dissatisfied, can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
13. The courts have held that a homeless applicant should be specific when drafting a review request. The High Court determined an email giving reasons for refusal of an offer of accommodation was held not to be a review request, even though it had been sent to a dedicated email address (R (Bereket) v Waltham Forest LBC (QBD 4 November 2021)).

What happened

14. This decision statement sets out the key events and is not intended to be a full account of everything that happened.
15. In 2024, Mrs X made a homelessness application to the Council after she was served with a notice to quite by her landlord. The Council accepted the relief duty whilst is carried out enquiries and provided interim accommodation.
16. The Council decided Mrs X was intentionally homeless. This decision was largely based on information provided by the landlord. The Council’s decision letter explained why it had made this decision and advised her she had the right to request a review within 21 days. She was told she would have to vacate her interim accommodation.
17. Mrs X responded by email two days later. She explained why she thought the decision was wrong, particularly because the Council had taken everything her landlord had said at face value and not heard her version of events.
18. After several weeks, Mrs X became concerned she had not received a response to her review request and contacted the Council. In response, the Council said it did not deem her email to be a review request and took no further action.
19. Mrs X then brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
20. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed its view that Mrs X’s email did not amount to a review request. It referred to case law set out at paragraph 13 above.

Analysis

21. We are not an appeal body and will not interfere with a decision made by a council if the correct procedure has been followed and the law applied correctly. In this case I am satisfied it was.
22. Mrs X’s response to Council’s decision letter did not state she was requesting a review. Her email started by saying that she was not happy with the decision. She then explained why she believed the information that Council had obtained from her landlord was factually incorrect.
23. I accept it was Mrs X’s belief that her email would be read as if it were a review request. But, as explained above, the courts have determined that a review request must be specific. Mrs X’s email was not because it did not request a review.
24. The Council decided it was an expression of dissatisfaction, as opposed to a review request. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make, by reference to relevant case law.
25. For this reason, the Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation. I have not found the Council to be at fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman