Summary: Miss D complains the Council refused her application for a home loss payment. We intend to discontinue the investigation because Miss D can pursue her case in court.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) disputes a decision made by the Council to refuse her application for a home loss payment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information provided by Miss D along with copies of the formal complaint responses from the Council.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

6. Miss D lived in a home of multiple occupation (HMO). In January 2023 the Council served a prohibition order on the property owner because of an unsafe structure. The owner subsequently issued Miss D with a notice to quit her room. They offered Miss D an alternative room in the same HMO. Miss D refused that alternative and found her own accommodation. In November Miss D applied to the Council for a home loss payment. Later that month the Council advised Miss D she did not meet the criteria for a home loss payment because she had not been permanently displaced from the HMO as the landlord had offered her another room within the dwelling.
7. Miss D disputes the Council’s decision and the interpretation of the term “dwelling” used in the relevant legislation for home loss payments.
8. I intend to discontinue the investigation because an investigation would not add to what the Council has already done or lead to a different outcome. The evidence shows the Council considered the application, took into account a letter from the property owner to Miss D offering her another room and that it set out the reasons for its decision. The crux of this complaint is that Miss D disputes what is meant by a “dwelling” and whether that relates to a room within an HMO or the wider HMO property. That is not a matter for the Ombudsman to decide. It is a legal challenge and Miss D would need to pursue this matter via the court service rather than the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I have discontinued the investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman