Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Mr X to use the review/appeals procedure provided by the legislation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to accept his homelessness application or to offer him accommodation when he left his shared accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 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))

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says he did not receive assistance from the Council when he applied as homeless following an assault incident with his housemate in shared accommodation.
7. The Council investigated his application and contacted his landlord and the Police about the incident in which he was named both as suspect and victim. The landlord said he could return to the property once his bail conditions exclusion had expired. The bail requirements had been lifted by the time the Council decided that he was not homeless and it owed not duty to accommodate him.
8. Mr X’s representative asked the Council to review its decision under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 part 7. They also complained to us before the outcome of the review was issued. A few weeks later the review was issued and upheld the decision that Mr X was not homeless and had since secured an alternative tenancy.
9. The review decision included details about how to challenge the decision by appealing to the courts under s.204 of the legislation.
10. We cannot overturn a council’s decision on a homelessness application where it has followed the correct procedure. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal if he wished to challenge the review decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application. it was reasonable for Mr X to use the review/appeals procedure provided by the legislation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman