Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions relating to Miss X’s housing. It is reasonable for Miss X to use her right of appeal via the county court for the decision she is not homeless. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision she cannot join its housing register.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council wrongly decided she was not homeless due to her property being unreasonable to continue to occupy. She also complained about its decision she therefore could not join its social housing register.
2. Miss X said she has suffered several falls due to the property, which is in another council area, being unsuitable for her needs due to disability. She said there are also issues with fly tipping, pests and disrepair. Miss X said her mental and physical health have been affected significantly. She wanted the Council to reconsider its decisions and house her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. (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 the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council decided Miss X’s accommodation in another council area was not unreasonable to continue to occupy, and that she was therefore not homeless. Miss X disagreed with this decision and asked for a review. The Council upheld its original decision and signposted Miss X to her right of appeal to the county court on a point of law.
8. Legal aid is available for such appeals, and there is not a good reason for us to consider the matter instead of the courts, which are best placed. It is reasonable for Miss X to use her statutory right of appeal and we will not investigate the matter instead.
9. The Council’s decision Miss X could not join its housing register was largely dependent on the decision she is not homeless. Given it is not for the Ombudsman to consider the decision on Miss X’s homelessness, we could only consider the housing register application on the basis that Miss X is not homeless.
10. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision Miss X could not join the housing register. Should the Council’s decision she is not homeless change, the Council can reconsider its decision about her housing register application.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is reasonable for her to use her right of appeal for the decision she is not homeless, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision she cannot join its housing register.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman