Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a review of a homelessness decision. The review decision has been withdrawn, so we cannot achieve significantly more on that. In that context, it would be disproportionate for us to consider whether the Council itself or its contractor should do the new review.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council’s contractor did not properly review the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty to Ms X. She says this caused distress.

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: it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council had a homelessness duty to Ms X. It offered her a property. Ms X refused the offer as she considered the property unsuitable for various reasons. The Council ended its homelessness duty.
8. An applicant can ask the Council to review such a decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) Ms X asked for a review. A contractor instructed by the Council did the review. Councils are entitled to contract out in this way. The review decision upheld the decision to end the homelessness duty.
9. Ms X then complained to us that the review decision had not properly considered her arguments and evidence. I also note the review decision did not tell Ms X of her further right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204) The law says review decisions must include that information. (Housing Act 1996, section 203(5))
10. I spoke to Ms X by telephone. Ms X told me the review decision has now been withdrawn and a new review of the homelessness decision is being conducted.
11. The decision that Ms X considered flawed, and that was the subject of Ms X’s complaint to us, no longer stands. So we could not achieve anything useful by considering that decision further.
12. Ms X is now back in the legal procedure for challenging homelessness decisions. The Council will arrange a new review decision. We cannot anticipate or speculate about the possible result of that new review. The law expressly provides the review right as the first step for challenging such decisions, so we normally expect people to use it. Ms X is evidently able to seek a review and provide arguments and evidence. So it is reasonable to expect Ms X to continue in the review procedure. The Ombudsman cannot achieve anything significant by getting involved in the matter.
13. If the new review decision were to uphold the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty, Ms X would then have the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. In that situation, the restriction in paragraph 3 would apply. However, the court appeal right has not yet arisen. I only mention this point now in case it might be relevant to how Ms X decides to proceed if the new review decision is unfavourable.
14. The law expressly provides the review right as the first step for challenging such decisions, so we normally expect people to use it. Ms X is evidently able to seek a review and provide arguments and evidence. So it is reasonable to expect Ms X to continue in the review procedure. The Ombudsman cannot achieve anything significant by getting involved in the matter.
15. Ms X wants the Council itself, not its contractor, to do the new review. That is a matter for the Council to decide. It is also peripheral to the central point about the Council ending its homelessness duty. I understand the Council is currently dealing with Ms X’s complaint on this point. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to complete the Councils’ complaint procedure on this. Moreover, it would be disproportionate for us to investigate the question of who should conduct the review when we are not investigating the underlying substantive matter (the Council ending its homelessness duty).

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. It is reasonable for Ms X to continue to use the statutory review procedure to challenge the homelessness decision. It would therefore be disproportionate for us to consider whether the Council itself or its contractor should do the review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman