The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The complaint concerns the Council declining to review its decision to end its legal duty to provide the complainant housing. These types of housing decisions carry a legal right for the person affected to request a review within a set timeframe and the Council considered the request the complainant submitted had been made late. We informed the Council about likely fault with its decision to decline the review request and in response it agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.
The complaint
The complainant (Miss V) complains about how the Council has handled her homelessness application and request for housing. Specifically, she is unhappy with the Council’s letter to her which discharges the main housing duty and the Council’s duty to provider her accommodation. Miss V also explains the Councill wrongly refused to accept her request for a review of its decision. She believes the Council’s conduct towards her is based on discriminatory factors.
In summary, Miss V says the alleged faults has caused a detrimental impact on her mental and physical health. She says it has also reduced her chances to be-come self-reliant. As a desired outcome, Miss V wants the Council to review her case fairly and responds to her queries and points.
My assessment
Under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996, a decision by the Council discharging its duty to provide housing carries a right for the complainant to request a review. We normally will not investigate complaints about such decisions where a right to a review can be exercised. The basis of Miss V’s complaint however is that the Council has declined to accept her request for a review on the basis it was made out of time. If we were to investigate this complaint, it is likely we would find fault by the Council causing an injustice. This is because Miss V’s review request appears to have been made in time and so should not have been declined.
The Council notified Miss V of its decision to discharge its housing duty in mid-October 2023. The Council explained that a request for a review must be made within 21 days of receipt of its letter. It also said receipt will be assumed to be two days after the date of the letter. This means Miss V had 23 days from the date of the discharge letter to request a review of the decision and provide this to the Council. She submitted a review request by letter on day 21 which was stamped as received by the Council on day 22. When assessing the review request, the evidence suggests the Council did not consider that Miss V was only deemed notified of the discharge decision two days from the date of its letter. This meant the Council considered the review request had been made one day late.
Separately, I consider the Council’s response to Miss V declining her request contains potentially misleading information about the legal process to challenge the decision through the courts. The Council’s letter says Miss V could challenge the decision by way of judicial review proceedings in county court. However, the further challenges should be referred to the county court statutory appeals procedure, as opposed to judicial review proceedings. Only the High Court can hear and judicial review proceedings.
I therefore asked the Council, in light of the above issues to consider remedying the injustice caused by its actions. Specifically, I invited the Council to accept Miss V’s review request and provide a response consistent with its policy.
Agreed action
To the Council’s credit, it has agreed to resolve the complaint and has confirmed it will now register Miss V’s review request and provide a response to this, giving this priority where possible. The law does however allow the Council eight weeks to complete the review. The Council will contact Miss V should it require any further information from her for the purposes of completing the review.
Final decision
We have upheld this complaint. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman