Summary: Mr X complains the Council has unreasonably failed to accept a housing duty in his case by failing to consider his medical evidence properly. We will not investigate this matter because it was reasonable to expect Mr X use his legal right to appeal to court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, says the Council failed to accept a duty to house him despite his health. Mr X says he suffers from severe depression/ anxiety and his health is deteriorating.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Housing Act 1996 (“the Act”) says that where someone is homeless and eligible for assistance, councils have a legal duty to try and relieve their homelessness.
6. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39
7. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.

8. The Act also gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their homelessness application to the Council. If an applicant wants to dispute a negative review decision, they can ultimately appeal to the county court on a point of law.
9. Mr X applied for housing assistance on the basis that he has priority need due to his medical conditions. The Council turned down his application.
10. Mr X asked the Council for a review which it did. But it upheld its earlier decision that he was not owed any priority need housing duty. The Council’s decision letter advised him of his appeal rights to the court.
11. We will not investigate. This is because Mr X could have appealed to the county court on a point of law. Unlike the courts we have no powers to overturn council homelessness decisions or make rulings on points of law so it is reasonable to expect him to have taken up his right to appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to accept a duty to house him due to his medical conditions. This is because Mr X had an appeal right to the county court on a point of law and it was reasonable to expect him to use this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman