Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council not providing accommodation to her when she successfully challenged its decision that she was not in priority need. This is because the Council agreed to resolve this aspect of the complaint by providing a proportionate remedy for Miss X’s injustice. We will not investigate the Council’s further decision that Miss X was not in priority need. Miss X had the right to seek a review and then appeal to the county court against the Council’s decision, and it was reasonable to expect her to do so.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council:

• Did not provide accommodation for her when she successfully challenged its decision that she was not in priority need for accommodation.
• Made a further decision that she did not have priority need for accommodation.

2. Miss X says that, as a result she is homeless, and is struggling with her mental health.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X made a homelessness application. The Council decided Miss X was not in priority need so it did not have a duty to provide accommodation to her. Miss X requested a review of this decision. On 3 September, the Council upheld Miss X’s review request and notified her that it now considered her to be in priority need. The Council also said it would offer accommodation to Miss X. The Council did not provide accommodation to her.
8. The Council then carried out further homelessness assessments. On 12 September, the Council notified Miss X that it considered she was not priority need so it did not have duty to accommodate her. It later sent a letter to Miss X notifying her of its decision. In the letter it explained Miss X had the right to seek a review of this decision. Miss X did not seek a review.
9. If we were to investigate this complaint it is likely we would find fault causing injustice to Miss X. This is because the Council considered Miss X was in priority need between 3 and 12 September so it had a duty to provide accommodation to her during this period. Miss X was homeless during this time.
10. We invited the Council to apologise and make a symbolic payment of £150 to her. This was to acknowledge the distress caused by not being accommodated by the Council for the period 3 to 12 September.
11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council deciding she was not in priority need after 12 September. This is because Miss X had the right to seek a review of the decision and appeal to the county court on a point of law if her review was unsuccessful. Miss X sought a review of a previous non priority need decision. So, it is reasonable to expect her to have requested a review of the Council’s further decision that she was not in priority need.

Back to top

Agreed action

12. The Council will apologise and make a payment of £150 to Miss X to acknowledge the distress caused to her by not being accommodated by the Council between 3 and 12 September. The Council’s apology should be in line with our expectations set out in our guidance on remedies. The Council should carry out the above action within one month of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council not providing accommodation to Miss X when she successfully challenged its decision she was not in priority need. This is because the Council agreed to resolve this aspect of the complaint by providing a proportionate remedy for Miss X’s injustice. We will not investigate the Council’s further decision that Miss X was not in priority need. Miss X had the right to seek a review and then appeal to the county court against the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman