Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council did not properly assess whether the complainant is in ‘priority need’ and owed a duty to be given accommodation. This is because the complainant has yet to have the Council’s decision that she is not in priority need reviewed under the review procedure. The Council was at fault by dealing with the complainant’s disagreement to the decision under its complaints procedure. The Council has accepted our invitation to offer the complainant with a fresh right of review, and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Miss X) complains about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. She says the assessment process was mishandled, particularly in relation to the Council’s determination of whether she was in ‘priority need’ and therefore owed a duty to be provided with accommodation. there was poor communication from the Council.
2. In addition, Miss X also says the Council has communicated poorly with her and failed to properly consider her medical needs. In summary, Miss X says the alleged fault has been mentally and physically exhausting to deal with. As a desired outcome, she wants an investigation and review into the alleged failings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 an investigation if we decide this would not lead to a different outcome (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. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Relief Duty: Under s.189B of the Housing Act 1996, a council must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. In accordance with s.184 of the Act, when the relief duty comes to end, councils have to make inquiries into cases of homelessness or threatened homelessness. It requires authorities to investigate if an applicant is eligible for assistance, what duties are owed to them.
6. The Main Housing Duty: Under s.198 of the Act, if a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available.
7. Right of Review/Appeal: Homeless applicants may request a review under s.202 of the Act within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. Under s.204, if an applicant is dissatisfied with a review decision (such as not being in ‘priority need’), or is not notified of the decision on the review within eight weeks, an applicant may appeal to county court on any point of law arising from the decision or, as the case may be, the original decision.
8. If we were to investigate, it is likely we would find fault causing the complainant an injustice. This is because the Council has used its corporate complaints process to investigate and affirm a decision that it does not owe Miss X a duty to secure her housing due to its assessment that she is not in ‘priority need’ by reason of some vulnerability. The evidence shows the Council has not treated the complaint as a review request, or invited Miss X to request a review in accordance with her statutory right under s.202 of the Act. The Guidance for Local Authorities (2012) on Review Procedures sets out that reviews should follow a separate and clearly set out process, which allows for all relevant factors to be considered in a reasonable time. Reviews should also be completed by someone senior to the original decision-maker. The Council’s use of its corporate complaints policy has had the effect of Miss X not receiving a review under the correct process and which is designed to take account of all relevant issues.

Back to top

Agreed action

9. The Council has agreed to our invitation that, within 7 days of this final decision statement, it will invite Miss X to request a review of its homelessness decision. The Council should then promptly invite Miss X to submit any further information or evidence she wants considered as part of that process, carry out the review and inform of the outcome in writing. If the outcome is that Miss X is in priority need and was owed a duty to secure her with accommodation, then, within one month of that outcome, the Council will provide further remedies to Miss X in accordance with the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies, including an apology letter and a financial payment.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has agreed to a suitable remedy which addresses the injustice caused, and further investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman