Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Miss X is intentionally homeless and that it will be taking action to remove her from temporary accommodation which it provided. It was reasonable for her to challenge the decision by way of an appeal to the court.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s decision that she is intentionally homeless after she was evicted from her previous accommodation. She has had a review of the decision but this was unsuccessful and the Council is now seeking to remove her from temporary accommodation. She wants the Council to reconsider its homelessness decision and allow her to remain in her 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. Miss X applied to the Council as homeless and was placed in temporary accommodation until the Council made a final decision on her homelessness status. In August the Council issued a decision that it considered her to be intentionally homeless because she had lost her previous accommodation through failure to maintain rent payments.
7. Miss X asked for a review of the Council’s decision under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 Part 7. The Council carried out the review but it upheld its original decision that she was intentionally homeless. The Council gave her information on how to challenge its decision by appealing to the court. The Council also served notice on her that it was ending its duty to provide temporary accommodation and that she must leave in November or it would start eviction action.
8. We cannot overturn a decision made by a council on a homelessness application. The legislation provides a means to challenge these decisions by way of the review/appeal procedure. I can find no evidence to suggest the Council did not follow the correct procedure when it made its decision on Miss X’s case and the review was properly carried out. The Council advised Miss X well in advance that she would have to leave the temporary accommodation if her review was unsuccessful and she had several weeks to seek alternative accommodation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Miss X is intentionally homeless and that it will be taking action to remove her from temporary accommodation which it provided. It was reasonable for her to challenge the decision by way of an appeal to the court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman