Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s Monitoring Officer failed to issue a report. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. Mr X had a right of appeal against the review decision issued in 2024 to end the homelessness duty and a right of review on the decision to close his housing application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council’s Monitoring Officer failed to comply with their duty under the provisions of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. He belives a report should have been issued under Section 5 of the legislation if the officer believed maladminstration was involved. He states that he was prevented from accessing housing and that this in turn had a negative impact on his family proceedings. Mr X states that the Council’s actions have caused severe hardship, distress and uncertainty.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X refused an offer of suitable accommodation and the Council discharged its homelessness duty in 2024. Mr X requested a review of the decision and the Council upheld the original decision. The Council subsequently ended his housing application because his circumstances had changed and he was required to submit a new application. It decided that Mr X was not eligible for the housing register. Mr X requested a s.166A review of this and the Council upheld its original decision.
6. We will not investigate these parts of the complaint because Mr X was advised about his rights of appeal against the homelessness decisions in 2024 and it was reasonable for him to pursue this remedy. We cannot overturn decisions on a homelessness application, this is a matter for the courts to decide.
7. Mr X also complained about the Council’s failure to issue a Monitoring Officer’s report under s.5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. We will not investigate this matter because the legislation is not appropriate to the circumstances. The Monitoring Officer would not be involved in the merits of homelessness decisions or a housing application review. There was no evidence that any maladministration had taken place and the correct means to seek a decision on this was by way of the courts or the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman