Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s homelessness decision. Miss X could reasonably have used her rights to ask for a Council review and to go to court.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has not treated her as a domestic abuse victim and has said it owes her the homelessness prevention duty rather than the relief duty. She says this has resulted in her living in fear of the person who has subjected her to abuse.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take, or could have taken, the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect, or to have expected, the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Councils can owe various legal duties to people in respect of homelessness. The ‘prevention duty’ applies when the Council believes someone is threatened with homelessness, which usually means likely to become homeless within 56 days. The ‘relief duty’ applies to someone who is already legally homeless.
6. On 7 October 2022 the Council accepted the prevention duty to Miss X. The Council says it did this because it believed Miss X was ‘experiencing fear of violence’ but was not a victim of domestic abuse (as legally defined).
7. Miss X believes she is a victim of domestic abuse and the Council should have treated her as already legally homeless so should owe her the relief duty, not the prevention duty.
8. Anyone disputing a council’s decision about which homelessness duty applies can ask the Council to review its decision. If they disagree with the review decision, they can then appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204) So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies.
9. The Council states its letter to Miss X on 7 October 2022 explained her review right. On 17 November 2022 the Council gave Miss X another two weeks to ask the Council to review its decision if she believed the decision about the prevention duty was wrong. I have seen no evidence Miss X sought a review.
10. I am satisfied Miss X knew about the review right and had the opportunity to use it. Seeking a review could have changed the decision Miss X is unhappy about. Even if the Council had not changed its position after reviewing the decision, Miss X could then have used her right to go to court on the legal points of whether the Council had accepted the wrong duty and whether her circumstances met the legal definition of domestic abuse. As the law expressly provides this route for resolving such disputes, we normally expect applicants to use it, with legal advice if necessary. There might be some cost to court action, but that in itself does not automatically make taking court action unreasonable, especially where the interpretation of legal points is at issue. For these reasons I consider it would have been reasonable to expect Miss X to use her right to ask for a review, then, if necessary, to use her right to go to court.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss’s complaint because she could reasonably have used her rights to seek a Council review and to go to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman