Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to close its homelessness investigation because the complainant is no longer threatened with homelessness. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a statutory review of the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council deciding that it no longer owed him the prevention duty under the Housing Act 1996 because his landlord had served him with an invalid possession notice. He says his family still faces losing their home because it is up for sale.

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 his family were faced with losing their home when the landlord served a section 21 possession notice on them in March 2024. The Council assessed their homeless application and accepted them under the Prevention Duty of the Housing Act 1996 because they were threatened with homelessness.
6. The Council made enquiries with the landlord and asked for documentation not be provided. Subsequently the landlord failed to meet the criteria for a valid notice because he had failed to comply with the deposit protection requirement. He accepted this and the notice was not a valid notice to quit which meant new notice procedures were required.
7. Because Mr X was legally entitled to remain in the property until the notice procedure was compliant he was no longer threatened with homelessness within 56 days. The Council closed its case on this basis. It advised him that he would be able to submit a new application if the correct notice procedure was continued in future.
8. Mr X dispute the Council’s reasons for closing his application and asked for a review under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996. He complained to us before the Council was able to issue a decision. If the outcome is negative he will have a right to appeal the decision not the County Court within 21 days. If the review is upheld then his homelessness case should be re-instated.
9. Mr X is concerned that the property is now for sale and he faces eviction if it is sold. The Council told him that even if the property is sold his tenancy remains valid and will require a notice to quit from the new owner before possession can be applied for.
10. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to close its homelessness investigation because the complainant is no longer threatened with homelessness. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a statutory review of the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman