Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s homelessness application. It was reasonable to expect Miss X to appeal rights and go to court.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council has acted unlawfully in its handling of her homelessness application. Miss X says she has suffered extreme stress and hardship.
2. Miss X would like the Council to resolve her homelessness and provide her with an apology and compensation.

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 an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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 the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X expressed dissatisfaction with the Council’s response to her handling of her housing application. She points to the Council having to withdraw a letter that it issued to her in error as evidence of its mistakes. She says she wants the Council to fulfil its duties towards her to resolve her homelessness.
8. Overall, the Council’s complaints response to Miss X found it did not owe any housing duty towards Miss X. The Council explains it placed Miss X in emergency accommodation, pending the outcome of its housing inquiries, as it appeared she had a priority need.
9. The Council said its housing inquiries found Miss X had a local connection to another Council. It contacted the second Council by making a ‘local connection referral’ of Miss X’s case to it.
10. The Council has accepted it was a mistake to issue the original decision letter to Miss X before receiving an official confirmation of acceptance from the second Council. But it reached the same decision a few days later when the second Council confirmed officially it would accept Miss X’s case.
11. Once the second Council accepts, Camden had no duty to obtain housing for the applicant. Miss X could have asked the Council to review the decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the review upholds the decision, Miss X can appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
12. The law provides for an internal Council review, and also a court remedy as the mechanisms to challenge such decisions on a point of law, so we normally expect applicants to use these.
13. Miss X considers the Council has acted unlawfully and not considered the merits of her housing application fairly. This relates to the application of the legislation so they are points of law.
14. We expect applicants to use their internal review rights and, if upheld, progress to the county court as the law provides. I have seen no information to indicate it was not reasonable to expect Miss X to appeal and pursue her claim in court as necessary. She could have sought advice from a solicitor, law centre or a homelessness advice charity, like Shelter. The court can make a binding decision and overturn council decisions, unlike the Ombudsman.
15. For these reasons, I consider it was reasonable to expect Ms X to use her review rights.
16. We will not separately investigate any other related issues such as why the Council sent a flawed original decison letter. This is inexorably intertwined with the Council’s handling of the housing application on which Miss X has an alternative remedy as outlined above.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it was reasonable to expect her to use her review and, if necessary, the court remedy the law provides for her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman