Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject an out of time homelessness review request. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s rejection of his out of time review request for it to reconsider its decisions on his homelessness application. He says the Council failed to take into account his mental health difficulties or make reasonable adjustments due to his vulnerability. He wants the Council to reconsider his review request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council refused to accept his request for a review of its homelessness decisions under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 Part 7 in 2024. He was considered to be non-priority homeless by the Council and says that he should be accepted as a vulnerable person. He also says the Personalised Housing Plan which the Council provided was not properly implemented in terms of the local authority steps which it should have taken.
6. The Council ended its homelessness duty in December 2024 and advised Mr X of his rights to seek a review of any decision he wished to challenge within 21 days. Mr X submitted a review request outside the 21-day period and the Council told him that it would not provide him with an out of time review.
7. Mr X says that he has difficulties meeting strict administrative deadlines and that he could not submit a review request in time which the Council should have made reasonable adjustments for. The Council says that he was aware of the decision letter and that he could have reasonably asked for a review without going into specific details at that point. It had considered whether or not he was a vulnerable person in its homeless decision and decided that he was capable of carry out most if not all of the actions of an ordinary person in this matter. He could also have asked for an extension of the time limit.
8. Mr X says the Council did not make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 although he had not provided evidence of which protected characteristic he is claiming.
9. The 21-day time limit for s.202 reviews is statutory and once expired it is at a council’s discretion as to whether it will accept a late review application. The Council considered Mr X’s request and explained why it decided not to accept it. This indicates that it is not applying a blanket policy on late applications and has therefore not fettered its discretion. For these reasons we cannot say that there was fault in the Council’s decision.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject an out of time homelessness review request. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman