Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council ended its housing duty because the complainant refused its offer of suitable housing. This is because the complainant has statutory review and appeal rights which he can use to challenge the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains that the Council unreasonably ended its housing duty on the grounds that he had turned down an offer of suitable privately rented accommodation. Mr X says the accommodation offered to him did not meet his mobility needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, unintentionally homeless and has a priority need, it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally councils carry out the main duty by arranging temporary accommodation until they make a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation to discharge the duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
7. The Housing Act 1996 also gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their homelessness application. This includes a decision that the accommodation a council offers to end its homelessness duty is suitable for the applicant’s needs.
8. If the person wants to challenge a negative review decision, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
9. The Council accepted the main homelessness duty in Mr X. Recently the Council made Mr X an offer of private rented accommodation. The Council said it considered the property was suitable accommodation and so the offer would end its homelessness duty in Mr X’s case.
10. Mr X disagreed the Council’s view about the suitability of the accommodation and he complained to the Ombudsman about the unreasonableness of the offer.
11. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the law gives Mr X a right of review against the Council’s decision. I note that the Council is currently considering a review request from Mr X under this process.
12. In addition, the law says we normally cannot investigate where someone could take the matter to court. If the Council upholds its decision in Mr X’s case following a review, he will then have a right of appeal to the county court if there is a point of law to argue. So, Mr X would also have the possibility of challenging the Council’s in court if necessary.
13. Unlike the courts, the Ombudsman has no powers to overturn homelessness decisions. Therefore I consider it reasonable for Mr X to use the legal remedy available to him if he disagrees with the outcome of the Councils’ review.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to use the review and appeal process available to him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman