Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness case. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the county court against the Council’s decision that he was intentionally homeless. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council disposing of his belongings. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to go to court about the loss of his belongings.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council wrongly considered he was intentionally homeless and wrongly disposed of his belongings. Mr X also complains the Council delayed in dealing with his complaint. Mr X says that as a result he lost his accommodation and his belongings which caused severe stress and anxiety to him.

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)

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 was a Council tenant. The Council ended Mr X’s tenancy following a period of absence by Mr X as it considered he had abandoned the property. When the Council repossessed the property, it also removed Mr X’s belongings.
7. Mr X made a homelessness application. The Council considered Mr X’s application and determined that he was intentionally homeless. Mr X requested a review of this decision. The Council carried out the review but did not change its decision.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that he was intentionally homeless. Mr X had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. This would include whether Mr X’s absence from his property amounted to abandonment. The Council also notified Mr X of his right to appeal to the county court. It is therefore reasonable to expect Mr X to have exercised his right of appeal.
9. Within its stage 2 response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council acknowledged it did not follow the correct procedure when removing Mr X’s belongings. We will not investigate this part of the complaint as Mr X had the right to make a claim in court for the loss of his belongings. A court would be better placed to decide what belongings Mr X lost and the value of those belongings.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate a complaint when we are unable to deal with the substantive issue of how the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application and the loss of his belongings.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to go to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman