Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Ms X’s homeless application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Councils investigation of her case and it was reasonable for her to challenge the statutory review decision by appealing to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision that she is intentionally homeless after she gave up temporary accommodation with another council. She says she is being evicted from her interim accommodation following the Council’s decision and will be street homeless.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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 the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X approached the Council has homeless in January 2024. The Council placed her in interim accommodation and investigated her application. In March the Council informed Ms X that it had decided that she was intentionally homeless because she gave up temporary accommodation with a different council before she applied to it. The previous council gave information that the accommodation it offered was suitable and she could have requested a review of suitability if she disagreed.
7. Ms X says her latest application is a joint one with her partner and should not have been closed based on her previous case. The Council says she has suitable accommodation which she gave up.
8. The Council’s decision letter advised Ms X that she could ask for a review of the decision under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 and she decided to follow this advice. The Council re-considered the decision but in May informed her that it upheld the original finding that she was intentionally homeless. The letter advised her of her right to appeal the decision to the court within 21 days.
9. Ms X says her latest application is a joint one with her partner and should not have been closed based on her previous case. The Council says she has suitable accommodation which she gave up. We cannot determine homelessness decisions where the procedure has been followed correctly. The courts by way of case law have decided how the legislation and guidance should be interpreted and we cannot decide such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Ms X’s homeless application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Councils investigation of her case and it was reasonable for her to challenge the statutory review decision by appealing to the County Court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman