Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions on Ms X’s homelessness application. It was reasonable for her to ask for a statutory review of the decisions and she had a further right of appeal to the County Court if this was unsuccessful.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to accept her as being homeless when she applied in 2023. She says she was sleeping in her car or at friends’ homes in this time and she was not offered temporary accommodation.

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:

• 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))

3. 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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X says the Council failed to offer her temporary accommodation when she presented as homeless in 2023. She was advised that the Council would accept her under the Relief duty under homelessness legislation. It provided her with a personalised Housing Plan and advised that she should make efforts to find accommodation whilst it would provide assistance.
7. The Council told her that it did not consider her to be eligible for interim accommodation as it believed she was non-priority homeless under the law. It asked her to provide medical evidence before a decision could be made. The Council subsequently told Ms X that it believed she had a local connection through employment with a neighbouring council and it may refer her but it did not do so when she did not provide confirmation of her employment.
8. In early January 2024 the Council notified Ms X that she as non-priority homeless and no duty was owed to her to provide accommodation. The letter included an explanation of her rights to challenge the deciosn under s.202 of the Housing Act 196 and that she had further appeal rights to the County Court. Ms X did not ask for a review of the decision.
9. The Council made a single offer of accommodation under the Relief Duty in January which Ms X did not accept. In February the Council notified Ms X that the Relief duty had ended due to the 56 days elapsing and because she refused an offer of accommodation. The letter again notified her of her rights to seek a review and appeal against the decision within 21 days.
10. We will not investigate complaints about matters which carry a right of review and appeal to the courts. It was reasonable for Ms X to challenge the Council’s decision and she had support from a crisis worker to assist her.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions on Ms X’s homelessness application. It was reasonable for her to ask for a statutory review of the decisions and she had a further right of appeal to the County Court if this was unsuccessful.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman