Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his homelessness application. This is because it was reasonable for him to challenge the Council’s statutory review decision by appealing to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the level of support the Council gave him when he became homeless. He said the Council failed to:
• act during the 56-day relief duty period;
• properly assess his situation;
• consider his history of domestic violence; and
• recognise him as in priority need.
2. He believes these failings caused avoidable distress, harmed his relationship with his child, and affected his job. He said he feels neglected and discriminated against. Mr X wants the Council to:
• provide immediate housing support;
• offer counselling and legal advice to help him reunite with his child;
• investigate his housing officer’s conduct;
• apologise and provide compensation; and
• review its homelessness policies to better support vulnerable people.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X was living with his parents when he informed the Council he needed to leave due to overcrowding, which placed him at risk of homelessness. He explained he required stable and secure accommodation because he had parental responsibilities for a child who did not live with him.
9. After assessing his circumstances, the Council accepted its relief duty. It referred Mr X to its landlords and letting agents and provided him with a list of websites to help him search for private rented accommodation independently. The Council also confirmed it would offer financial support if he found accommodation in the private sector, such as assisting with deposit payments.
10. By accepting the relief duty, the Council acknowledged it owed Mr X a duty for 56 days to take reasonable steps to help him secure suitable accommodation and relieve his homelessness. Mr X felt the support the Council provided during this period was not adequate or meaningful enough.
11. During the relief duty period, the Council invited Mr X to view four properties. He was informed he was eligible for shared accommodation only, although he expressed a preference for one-bedroom properties due to his parental responsibilities. While Mr X registered on the property websites recommended by the Council, he declined several options because their locations would have made it difficult for him to balance his work commitments and responsibilities as a single parent.
12. Four months after accepting the relief duty, the Council decided to end its duty and further decided Mr X did not meet the criteria to qualify for priority need. Mr X requested a review of this decision, stating the assessment was inadequate and flawed. He maintained his vulnerability, as a victim of domestic abuse, should have qualified him for priority need status.
13. The Council reviewed its decision and upheld the original conclusion, stating ending the relief duty and determining Mr X was not in priority need were both correct and lawful decisions. It found it had taken reasonable steps to help him secure accommodation, justifying the decision to end the relief duty after more than 56 days.
14. It informed Mr X he could appeal to the County Court within 21 days if he remained dissatisfied with the Council’s decision.
15. Mr X had the right to appeal the Council’s decision to the County Court if he believed the Council failed to assess his vulnerability and priority need accurately. Therefore we will not investigate this complaint, as there was no good reason why Mr X could not have used his right to appeal to the County Court.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to challenge the Council’s statutory review decision by appealing to the County Court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman