Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Mrs X is not homeless or threatened with homelessness. It was reasonable for her to use her statutory right to request a review and then appeal to the county court.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council:
• decided she was not homeless or threatened with homelessness; and
• did not agree to consider her subsequent homelessness application.
2. Mrs X said her family’s accommodation was overcrowded and unsuitable for her child’s needs. She wanted the Council to place the family in accommodation that would meet their needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X told the Council her family’s accommodation was overcrowded. She asked it to treat them as homeless and move them to suitable accommodation. The Council issued a decision in May 2024, explaining it had decided Mrs X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness. It explained Mrs X’s right to request a review and provided her the relevant email address to do so.
8. Mrs X did not ask the Council to review its decision. She instead made a new homelessness application in July 2024. The Council wrote to her in August 2024 saying it would not consider the application because there were no new facts that made it different from her earlier one.
9. It was reasonable for Mrs X to ask the Council to review its decision of May 2024. Had she done so, and the Council upheld its decision, its refusal letter would have explained Mrs X’s statutory right of appeal to the county court on a point of law. It would have been reasonable for Mrs X to follow that process to appeal the Council’s decision, rather than make a new homelessness application.
10. We will not normally investigate complaints where there is a statutory right of appeal to court. We are not an appeal body. The court’s decisions are binding, and legal aid is available. There are no particular factors in Mrs X’s case that mean it was unreasonable for her to appeal using the usual procedure.
11. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision it would not investigate Mrs X’s second application. The law says councils are entitled to reject repeat applications where the facts raised are not new.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it was reasonable for her to use her statutory right of appeal to the county court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman