The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s review of its decision to end its homelessness duty in a woman’s case was not impartial. This is because the woman has a right of appeal to court if she considers the review decision is legally flawed.
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 Mrs B provided with her complaint. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Housing Act 1996 gives homeless applicants rights of review about councils’ main decisions on their homelessness application. This includes a decision to end a council’s housing duty in the person’s case. If the review decision is negative, the applicant has the possibility of challenging this by appealing to the county court on a point of law.
Mrs B applied to the Council for housing assistance when she was homeless. The Council placed Mrs B’s family in emergency accommodation, and it subsequently accepted a homelessness duty in her case Later on the Council moved Mr B’s family to different temporary accommodation. But after Mrs B complained about a serious anti-social behaviour problem there, the Council offered her alternative accommodation. However Mrs B turned down the other property on the basis it was not suitable for her family’s needs. In response, the Council confirmed its view that the property was suitable and, as a result, ended its housing duty in Mrs B’s case because of her refusal to take it.
Mrs B asked the Council to review this finding. But following a review the Council upheld its earlier decision to end its housing duty. The Council’s review decision letter also advised Mrs B about her right to appeal to the county court.
But we will not investigate Mrs 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 informs Mrs B that she can appeal to the county court within 21 days if she wants to challenge the decision on legal grounds. I see no reason why Mrs B should not be expected to use her right of appeal if she considers the review decision is legally flawed because of bias on Officer A’s part, or because it is otherwise wrong in law. I also note in this respect that Mrs B has access to independent legal advice.
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 Mrs B’s homelessness case or force the Council to change its decision. Therefore, I also do not see we could achieve the outcome she wants from her complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council’s review decision about ending its homelessness duty in her case was flawed because the reviewing officer was not impartial. This is because Mrs B has court appeal rights she can use if she wants to challenge the Council’s decision on a point of law.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman