Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Mr X’s homeless application. It was reasonable for him to ask for a statutory review of the decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council decided that he is non-priority homeless and he is threatened with eviction by his private landlord. He wants the Council to accept it has a duty to 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 applied to the Council as homeless when he was faced with eviction by his private landlord. He completed an application and provided some evidence that he had medical conditions. The Council accepted him under the homelessness Relief duty while it made investigations.
6. The Council told Mr X that he was not in priority need after it considered that his medical evidence did not confirm he was vulnerable. It advised him of his right to a review under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996. He requested a review and this was undertaken within the required time limit. The review upheld the original decision that he was non-priority homeless and advised him of his right to challenge the decision in the County Court within 21 days. Mr X then complained to us.
7. Since he complained to us, Mr X submitted a new homeless application and this was also rejected as non-priority. The Council says it has again accepted the relief duty and that Mr X has been advised of his rights to ask for another s.202 review and appeal.
8. We will not investigate a complaint where it was reasonable for someone to ask for a review/appeal of a council’s homeless decision.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Mr X’s homeless application. It was reasonable for him to ask for a statutory review of the decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman