Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness application and its decision to end the relief duty. Mr X requested a statutory review of the Council’s decision and it is reasonable to expect him to appeal to the county court. There is not enough injustice to Mr X to justify investigating his complaints about delay in accepting the main housing duty, delay in dealing with his review request and how the Council arranged viewings.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council delayed in accepting the main housing and that it wrongly ended the relief duty as it considered it had offered suitable accommodation to him. Mr X says that the Council’s handling of his application and viewings of properties caused him distress and practical difficulties, including difficulties with work. He says the situation affected his wellbeing and financial position.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X made a homelessness application. The Council accepted the relief duty. Some weeks later it offered a private rented property to Mr X which he accepted. The Council then ended its relief duty as it considered it had offered a suitable property to end Mr X’s homelessness.
8. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision to end the relief duty as he considered the property offered to be unsuitable. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as he has exercised his right to seek a review of the Council’s decision to end the relief duty. Mr X has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law if the Council does not change its decision. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right of appeal to the county court.
9. Mr X said the Council delayed in considering if it should accept the main housing duty. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient injustice to Mr X to justify an investigation. Even if the Council should have accepted the main housing duty it could have ended that duty by offering the same property to Mr X. So, it is likely the outcome would have been the same for Mr X.
10. We will not investigate delay by the Council in carrying out the review of its decision to end the relief duty. Any delay will have caused some uncertainty to Mr X but this is not sufficient injustice to justify an investigation. Mr X had accommodation during this time.
11. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s arrangements for viewing properties which he said were at short notice and affected his work. We will not investigate this aspect of Mr X’s complaint. Any distress and inconvenience caused by the Council’s arrangements is not sufficient injustice to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as he requested a review of the Council’s decision to end the relief duty and it is reasonable to expect him to use his right appeal to the county court. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay in accepting the main housing duty, delay in carrying out the review and its arrangements for viewings as there is not enough injustice to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman