Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding Miss X is intentionally homeless. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to use the review and appeal process the law provides for such situations.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not take proper account of the circumstances that led to her becoming homeless before it decided she was intentionally homeless.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 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))
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The law says we cannot normally 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 information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. If a council decides an applicant is intentionally homeless, it has no duty to obtain housing for the applicant. The applicant can ask the council to review the decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the review upholds the decision, the applicant can appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
7. The Council decided Miss X was intentionally homeless. Miss X argues that decision did not take proper account of why she had left her previous address. In late January or early February 2024, Miss X asked the Council to review its decision. The Council has eight weeks from the date of Miss X’s request to issue a review decision unless Miss X agrees a longer period.
8. The law provides the review route as the first way to challenge such a decision, so we normally expect applicants to use this route. Miss X is evidently able to do so. The Council will consider the review request. It is not appropriate for the Ombudsman to intervene in that legal process.
9. If the Council’s review finds in Miss X’s favour, the Council will withdraw the decision and make a new decision. If the Council’s review upholds the decision that Miss X is intentionally homeless, Miss X would then have the court appeal right mentioned above. The argument here is about whether the Council has properly considered Miss X’s circumstances and any other relevant factors when considering the chain of events leading to Miss X’s current situation. Those points relate to the application of the legislation and case law about intentional homelessness, so they are points of law.
10. Again, we would normally expect applicants to use the court appeal right that the law provides if it arises. Miss X is able to pursue matters. She could seek help with an appeal if she wishes, from, for example, a solicitor, law centre, advice agency or specialist housing or homelessness organisation. The court can make a binding decision and overturn the Council's decision if it sees fit, unlike the Ombudsman. There might be a potential cost to court action, but that is not in itself automatically a reason to consider court action unreasonable, and applicants can get help with court costs if they are eligible.
11. For these reasons, I consider it is reasonable to expect Miss X to continue in the review procedure and then use her right to go to court if necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Miss X to use the review and court appeal process the law provides for such situations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman