Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision on his homelessness application, because is it reasonable to expect him to use his right to appeal to court. For the remaining parts of his complaint, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation by us would likely not achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council made a mistake when it decided he did not have shared care of his child. He said the Council’s homelessness team have made mistakes and have not provided him with support. He said the Council’s actions have left him feeling drained and deflated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X made a homelessness application to the Council. The Council completed a homelessness assessment. It accepted a relief duty and issued a personalised housing plan.
7. Mr X said he gave the Council evidence he had shared care of his child. It reviewed his evidence and decided that, whilst it agreed he had access to a child, it did not class him as having shared care of that child and so he did not have a priority need.
8. Mr X said the Council has not provided him with regular contact or support. He said it wrongly accused him of being abusive and ended a phone call with him for no reason.
9. Mr X also complained he made the housing team aware he was being affected by Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB), but it did not pass on his ASB concerns to the relevant team.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision he does not have shared care of a child. Since Mr X complained to us, the Council wrote to him with its decision he did not have a priority need, and the letter explained Mr X had a right to request the Council reviews its decision. It was open for him to use this right of review.
11. If an applicant still disagrees with the Council’s decision after a review, they have a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law within 21 days. The court can overturn the Council’s position and make a binding order if it sees fit. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use his review right, and then his appeal right, as the county court can achieve the outcome he desires.
12. Nor will we investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has not provided him with support and wrongly ended a phone call with him. From the evidence I have seen, the Council has made regular contact with Mr X. Council records show a member of staff felt his behaviour during a phone call was not appropriate and so they ended the call, but Mr X continued to receive regular contact again from the Council the next day. His access to the Council’s services were not restricted following the call. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by us.
13. Finally, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council did not pass on his ASB concerns to the relevant team. In its complaint response, the Council apologised for this oversight and said it had not realised Mr X wanted it to raise this concern on his behalf. It said it had passed his details to the ASB team who would contact him regarding his concerns. Further investigation by us into this matter would not achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to request the Council review its decision and then appeal to the county court if needed. Additionally, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation by us would likely not achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman