The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding Mr X is intentionally homeless. It was reasonable for him to use his appeal rights in court following the Council’s review of the decision.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s decision that he made himself intentionally homeless and it therefore did not owe him a homelessness.
Mr X said this caused a negative physical and mental impact.
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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (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
Mr X made a homelessness application to the Council after he was served with an eviction notice.
The Council decided Mr X was intentionally homeless. This means the Council has no duty to obtain housing for Mr X.
Mr X unsuccessfully appealed the Council’s decision. The Council said Mr X did not provide specific grounds for his review request.
Following its review of the decision, the Council told Mr X he had the right to appeal to the county court within 21 days of the decision.
The Ombudsman does not investigate complaints where the complainant has a right of appeal and it is reasonable for the person to use it. That was the case here and so we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to appeal to the court.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman