Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that it does not owe her a homelessness duty. It was reasonable for her to use her right of appeal to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision that it does not owe her a homelessness duty. She says the decision failed to consider safeguarding and medical evidence. She also complains the Council has refused her further homelessness application.
2. Mrs X says the matter has severely impacted her and her family’s health and living circumstances. She wants the Council to reassess her housing application and accept her as threatened with homelessness.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate
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)
5. The County Court deals with appeals about homelessness decisions.
6. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mrs X.
8. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Guidance).

Back to top

My assessment

9. We will not investigate the Council’s decision that it does not owe Mrs X a homelessness duty. The Council's decision carried a right of appeal to the County Court on a point of law. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and cannot overturn or change decisions. If Mrs X considered the decision was wrong, it was reasonable for her to use her right of appeal to the County Court. I have seen no evidence to suggest it was unreasonable for her to appeal. Therefore, we will not investigate.
10. We will also not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her further homelessness application. The Guidance states that where a local authority receives a further application from an applicant it previously decided on, it may rely on its prior decision if there are no new facts or the new facts are of a trivial nature. The evidence I have seen shows that Mrs X’s circumstances did not significantly change since her previous application the Council decided on. Therefore, the Council was entitled to refuse the further application and there is not enough evidence of fault on this point to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it was reasonable for her to use her right of appeal and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s refusal of her further application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman