Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (24 013 711)

Category : Housing > Homelessness

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 04 Feb 2025

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils consideration of a homeless application. It was reasonable for Mr X to challenge the Council’s decision by way of statutory review and court appeal.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained the Council did not assess his priority need for housing correctly.
  2. He says his current housing puts him at risk and away from support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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))
  2. 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

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Mr X applied to the Council as homeless in October 2023.
  2. The Council wrote to Mr X in April 2024 and advised that it no longer owed him Relief Duty under the Housing Act 1996. In addition, it informed him it did not owe him a main duty as he was not priority need.
  3. The Council advised Mr X that he could ask for a review of the decision under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996. If he was unhappy with its review decision, he could have appealed to the county court on a point of law.
  4. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to exercise his rights of review and appeal. Therefore, we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision he was not in priority need. It was reasonable for Mr X to challenge the Council’s decision by way of a statutory review and court appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings