Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s housing. This is because the complaint in part carries a right of appeal to a county court which it is reasonable for Ms X to use. Regarding the other part of her complaint, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council has:
1. Wrongly decided she has made herself intentionally homeless; and
2. Treated her unfairly and spoken to her poorly during the homelessness process.
2. Ms X said the Council’s actions caused her distress and she wants the Council to treat her fairly and provide her with social housing

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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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 and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Housing law and guidance

7. Councils must complete reviews of the certain decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request. This includes a decision that an applicant has made themselves intentionally homeless.
8. Once the Council has issued the review decision, they must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)
9. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))

My findings

10. Ms X applied as homeless to the Council but the Council found she had made herself intentionally homeless. Ms X requested a review and the Council completed its review a month later.
11. It upheld its original decision that Ms X had made herself intentionally homeless and informed Ms X of her right to appeal to county court if she disagreed. The Council decided not to accommodate Ms X pending review.
12. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman. She said the Council’s actions had caused her distress and its officers had spoken to her poorly and not treated her fairly.
13. Regarding whether Ms X made herself intentionally homeless, Ms X had a county court appeal right on this point which it was reasonable for her to use. The county court is the appropriate process to resolve this dispute and so in line with paragraph four, we will not investigate this part of the complaint further.
14. Ms X also complained the Council treated her unfairly and spoke poorly with her. I cannot see from the case records any evidence of Ms X being treated unfairly. The Council’s letters and decisions have explained their reasons clearly and in line with the law. As there is not enough evidence of fault, we will not investigate this part of Ms X’s complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it carries an appeal right which was reasonable for Ms X to use and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman