Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application. This is because it would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to use his legal review and appeal rights. We will not investigate the second part of the complaint concerning officer conduct as there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council's decision on his homelessness application. He says the Council wrongly decided he was not homeless despite him being unable to return to the family home.
2. Mr X also complains about the conduct of a Council officer during the housing assessment. Mr X says the officer made inappropriate comments about his finances, immigration status and personal circumstances.

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:

• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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 Mr X and the Council’s response to his complaint.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The complaint information shows the Council decided Mr X was not eligible for homelessness assistance. It wrote to him advising him of his appeal rights made up of a review and then appeal to court under the Housing Act 1996.
8. The Council also said it found the officer complained about had been ‘firm but fair’ towards Mr X. However, it apologised if Mr X felt the officer had acted unprofessionally and said it would remind staff to communicate with empathy. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint about staff conduct.
9. We will not investigate. This is because Mr X had a right to challenge the Council’s decision through the legal review and appeal process. It was reasonable to expect him to use his appeal rights. Where Parliament has provided a dedicated appeal mechanism for homelessness decisions, we expect complainants to normally use that process. If dissatisfied with the Council review outcome, Mr X could have appealed to court given he alleges his homelessness application was not considered fairly.
10. With respect to Mr X’s concerns about officer conduct, we will not investigate. The Council has investigated by checking the records of the conversation. It has also acknowledged Mr X’s feelings and provided an apology. And it has said it will remind staff of the importance of empathy when speaking to applicants. This is an appropriate response by the Council and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable to expect him to take up his legal review and appeal to court remedy. We will not investigate the complaint about officer conduct as there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman