The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council unreasonably decided it had no duty to continue housing a homeless man. This is because the man had a right of appeal to court if he wanted to dispute the Council’s decision. In addition, it is very unlikely we could 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 took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Housing Act 1996 (‘the Act’) gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ key decisions on their homelessness application. This includes a decision that someone is not owed the main housing duty under the Act if they do not have a priority need. If an applicant wants to dispute a negative review decision they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
Mr B applied to the Council as homeless and, in response, it provided him with emergency accommodation while it considered his application. The Council also accepted a ‘relief duty’ under the Act in Mr B’s case, which meant it had to take reasonable steps to help him secure accommodation.
The Act says a council can bring the relief duty to an end after 56 days as long as it has been taking those reasonable steps, even if the person has not secured accommodation by then. If the person is still homeless at that point a council must then decide if it owes the person the main housing duty. But councils only owe the main duty if the applicant meets one of the priority need criteria in the Act.
In Mr B’s case the Council decided he did not have a priority need. Mr B asked for a review of this finding. But following a review the Council upheld its original decision. The review decision letter 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 challenge the decision on a point of law. I see no reason why Mr B should not be expected to have used his right to go to court if he felt the Council’s review decision was wrong in law. In addition, if Mr B has now missed the 21-day deadline, he may still be able to make a late appeal 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 application or force the Council to change its decision in his case. Therefore, I consider it highly unlikely we could achieve the outcome he is seeking from his complaint.
Final decision
Mr B complained that the Council unreasonably decided it had no duty to secure accommodation for him on the basis he did not have a priority need. But we will not investigate this matter because Mr B has or had court appeal rights he could use to challenge the Council’s decision on a point of law and, anyway, it seems we could not achieve the outcome he wants from his complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman