Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Ms X was intentionally homeless as she had the right to appeal to the county court. We also will not investigate the Council’s refusal to accept a new homelessness application from her. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council:

• wrongly decided she was intentionally homeless.
• wrongly refused to accept a new homelessness application following a referral from another council.

2. Ms X says that as a result she and her children are homeless.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X made a homelessness application to the Council as she was evicted from her private rented property. The Council accepted the relief duty and provided interim accommodation to Ms X and her children. The Council then decided Ms X was intentionally homeless so it did not have a duty to provide accommodation. It ended the relief duty and asked Ms X to leave the interim accommodation.
8. Ms X requested a review of the Council’s decision. The Council considered Ms X’s review but upheld its decision that she was intentionally homeless.
9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that she was intentionally homeless. The Council’s review decision letter clearly told Ms X that she could appeal to the county court. Ms X was able, with help, to seek a review of the Council’s decision. Ms X could also have asked housing charities or advice agencies for help with appealing. So, it is reasonable to expect Ms X to have used her right of appeal.
10. Ms X made a homelessness application to another council who accepted the relief duty and provided interim accommodation to her. The other council then referred Ms X back to the Council as this was the area where she had a local connection. The Council accepted the referral but refused to accept another homelessness application. This was because it considered Ms X’s circumstances had not significantly changed since her last application.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council’s decision letter shows it made this decision after asking Ms X about her circumstances so it was in a position decide if her circumstances had significantly changed. So, there is not enough of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it was reasonable to expect Ms X to appeal to the county court against the Council’s decision that she was intentionally homeless. We also will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council not accepting another homelessness application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman