Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to consider a late review request. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, and Miss X had a court appeal right that it was reasonable for her to use.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council refused to consider her review request about its decision to end its homelessness duties to her.
2. Miss X said that this has caused her frustration and worry, especially because she is the sole carer of her grandchild.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 was receiving homelessness duties from the Council.
8. The Council offered Miss X a tenancy and said that by doing so it had satisfied its homelessness duties to her. Miss X did not accept the property because it was too far away from her family and friends’ network.
9. The Council then ended its homelessness duties to Miss X and told her of her right to request a review of its decision within 21 days. Miss X asked the Council to review its decision outside the 21 days the law allows for review requests to be made.
10. The Council decided not to consider Miss X’s review request because it was late. The Council said that it considered Miss X’s reasons for the lateness but decided not to exercise its discretion to consider it.
11. 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 a Council 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 Miss X disagreed with the decision the Council made.
12. Having reviewed the Council’s decision, it is unlikely that we would find fault. The Council considered all the relevant information when exercising its duties and making its decision.
13. It was reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the county court about the Council’s decision, and she was legally represented when filing the review request to the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, and she had a court appeal right that it was reasonable for her to use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman