Westminster City Council (24 014 346)

Category : Housing > Homelessness

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 21 Jan 2025

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Mr X was not in priority need when he made a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the county court on a point of law.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained the Council failed to consider his mental health and advice from his GP when making a decision on his homelessness application. He said the matter has worsened his mental health. He wanted the Council to provide him with housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Mr X’s complaint is about the Council’s Section 202 review decision. This confirmed the Council’s view Mr X was not in priority need, and it therefore did not have a duty to house him. Such decisions bring a statutory right of appeal to the county court on a point of law.
  2. Where someone has a statutory right of appeal, we normally expect them to use it. In this case, it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal the Council’s decision to court.
  3. The Council told Mr X about his right of appeal to the county court. Mr X’s mental health did not prevent him contacting us, so it would not have prevented him contacting a legal advisor. Legal aid is available for such appeals, so cost is not a preventative factor and Mr X could have had legal representation to present his case. The courts are best placed to consider appeals of homelessness decisions. There is not a good reason for us to consider the matter instead.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to use his statutory right of appeal to the county court on a point of law.

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