Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Mr X was intentionally homeless. It was reasonable for him to use his statutory right of appeal to the county court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly decided he was intentionally homeless and therefore that it had no duty to house him. He said the Council’s decision failed to consider information he provided relating to risks he faced in his previous accommodation. Mr X said the matter caused him and his child distress and inconvenience and has caused him to build debts. He wanted the Council to retract its decision and pay him a financial remedy. He also wanted it to make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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. Mr X’s complaint is about the Council’s Section 202 review decision. This confirmed the Council’s view Mr X was intentionally homeless, 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.
7. 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.
8. The Council told Mr X about his right of appeal to the county court. 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.
9. In any event, the review decision Mr X complains about was made in June 2023, 18 months before he complained to us. The matter would now also be considered late.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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 in 2023.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman