Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s homelessness application because there is insufficient injustice to justify our involvement. Further, Ms X had the right to appeal to the county court in respect of the Council’s decision she was not in priority need and it was reasonable for her to exercise that right.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s delay in providing a copy of its medical adviser’s report after she requested it, about its decisions in her homelessness case and about delays in responding to complaints and review requests.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
4. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

My assessment: medical advice

7. Ms X made a homelessness application in May 2023. We have previously considered her complaint about events from then until June 2024. As part of that complaint, we found fault with the Council’s transparency and communications with Ms X, which caused her some uncertainty, and the Council agreed a payment to remedy that.
8. In her current complaint, Ms X says she was not aware the Council had obtained a report from its medical adviser until the draft decision on the previous complaint, that there was a delay in obtaining medical evidence from her GP and requesting advice from the medical adviser, and a delay in providing the medical adviser’s report when Ms X asked for it.
9. We have already considered the period to June 2024. When deciding the appropriate remedy, we were aware of a potential delay in seeking advice from the medical adviser and the Council’s failure to communicate openly with Ms X. The advice from the medical adviser was set out in the Council’s decision she was not in priority need in September 2024. There is insufficient injustice caused by the new issues raised to warrant further investigation.

What happened - decisions and reviews since June 2024

10. In September 2024, the Council accepted a relief duty and issued a personalised housing plan (PHP). On the same day, it issued a decision that Ms X was not in priority need. Ms X asked for a review of the PHP and the decision she was not in priority need.
11. In November 2024, the Council ended the relief duty because 56 days had elapsed. It said Ms X was not in priority need and it therefore did not have a duty to accommodate her. Ms X asked for a review of that decision.
12. In December 2024, the Council issued its review decision. It’s review decision:
• said the relief duty lasts for 56 days and ended at the end of that period. There was no indication the decision to end the relief duty was flawed;
• explained it did not consider it necessary to review the PHP, which Ms X said was inadequate because it was not sufficiently specific in respect of her housing and medical needs, because the relief duty had ended so a PHP was no longer needed;
• said it did not consider Ms X significantly more vulnerable that other people who become homeless and explained its reasons for deciding she was not in priority need; and
• set out her right to appeal to the county court on a point of law.
13. Ms X did not agree with the Council’s decisions and also said she wanted three separate decisions.

My assessment- decisions and reviews since June 2024

14. Ms X was entitled to ask for a review of the actions the Council required her to take in the PHP and the Council was required to carry out the review within 56 days. The Council did not carry out a review within that timeframe, but Ms X’s review request was not about the steps she had to take, so was arguably not a valid review request. In any case, any delay in issuing a review decision about the PHP has not caused a significant injustice to Ms X to warrant further investigation.
15. Ms X asked for a review of the Council’s decision she was not in priority need and the Council should have carried out a review within 56 days of the request, which would have been 14 November 2024. It did not do so. However, the law does not require it to decide whether a person is in priority need until the end of the relief period. The Council ended the relief duty on 26 November and repeated its decision Ms X was not in priority need at that time and explained its reasons for deciding that. It carried out a review of the second decision within 28 days. Therefore, although the review decision was not issued within 56 days of the original request, it was issued earlier than 56 days of the end of the relief period. On that basis, I do not consider any delay in carrying out the review caused a sufficient injustice to warrant further investigation.
16. Ms X had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law if she disagrees with the review decision made in December and it was reasonable for her to use her appeal rights if she disagreed with that decision.
17. Although I acknowledge Ms X is unhappy the Council’s review decision covered all three aspects, as opposed to it issuing three separate decisions, I do not consider that amounts to fault and, in any case, it has not caused a sufficient injustice to warrant further investigation.
18. We do not investigate complaints about complaints handling if we are not investigating the underlying matters complained about.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application because there is insufficient injustice to justify our involvement. Further, Ms X had a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law if she disagreed with the review decision and it was reasonable for her to exercise that right.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman