The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: A man complained about the Council’s decision to end its housing duty in his case because he was intentionally homeless. But we will not investigate this complaint because the man has a right of appeal to court if he wants to challenge that decision, and we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking in that respect.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The law says we normally cannot 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint. I also considered information from the Council about its homelessness decision in Mr B’s case and its complaint correspondence with him. In addition I took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Housing Act 1996 gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their homelessness application. This includes a decision that the person is intentionally homeless. If an applicant wants to challenge a negative review decision they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
Mr B made a homelessness application to the Council on the basis it was unreasonable for his family to stay in their accommodation because of serious overcrowding. The Council placed Mr B’s family in emergency accommodation while it considered his application.
Later the Council decided Mr B was intentionally homeless because of the circumstances in which his family came to live with him.
Mr B asked for a review of the Council’s decision. But following a review the Council upheld its finding that he was intentionally homeless. The Council’s review decision letter also advised Mr B about his right of appeal to the county court.
But we will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about this matter.
First, the law says we usually cannot investigate a complaint where someone could take the matter to court. The Council’s review decision letter clearly informed Mr B that he could appeal to the county court within 21 days if he wanted to dispute the decision on a point of law. I see no reason why Mr B should not use his right of appeal if he feels the review decision is wrong in law. In addition, if Mr B has missed the deadline for making an appeal, he may still be able to make a late appeal now if he had good reason for not doing so on time.
Second, unlike the Council and the courts we have no powers to overturn homelessness decisions or rule on points of law. So we cannot make our own finding about Mr B’s homelessness case or force the Council to change its decision. Therefore, I do not see we could achieve the outcome he is seeking from his complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council unreasonably decided he was intentionally homeless. This is because Mr B has or had court appeal rights he could use to dispute the Council’s decision on a point of law, and anyway we cannot achieve the outcome he wants from his complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman