The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homeless and housing register applications. He complains the Council failed to treat him as homeless and failed to backdate his housing priority band appropriately. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, it is appropriate to allow the Council the opportunity to complete a review of Mr X’s banding priority.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his homeless and housing register applications. He complains the Council failed to treat him as homeless and failed to backdate his housing priority band appropriately.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In Aoril 2023, the Council wrote to Mr X to advise him of its decision that he was not homeless or threatened with homelessness. This was because Mr X’s landlord had not served him with a valid notice to quit.
Mr X asked the Council for a review of this decision in May 2023. Mr X asked the Council to allow him more time to provide the information as evidence to support his review request. Mr X provided this in August 2023.
In November 2023, the Council issued its review decision letter. The Council upheld its decision and explained Mr X was not served a valid notice of quit and that his landlord did not serve a further notice to quit. As a result, Mr X was able to remain in his accommodation. The Council advised Mr X of his right to appeal to the county court on a point of law.
An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council has provided a clear reason as to why it determined Mr X was not homeless. The Council also appropriately reviewed its decision and informed Mr X of his right of appeal. If Mr X considered the Council was wrong on a point of law, it was reasonable for him to have appealed.
Mr X also complained that his Band 2 priority should be backdated further than February 2023. Mr X has the right to challenge this decision by asking the Council to review its decision. The Council has confirmed it had not yet completed a review of its decision to only backdate Mr X’s Band 2 priority to February 2023. An investigation is not justified as it is appropriate to allow the Council the opportunity to complete the review.
The Council said it had asked Mr X to provide information to allow it to complete the review. It is open to Mr X to provide the information requested to the Council.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, it is appropriate to allow the Council the opportunity to complete a review of Mr X’s banding priority.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman