Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application and its decision to discharge its homelessness duty to Mrs X. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision on the housing application and it is reasonable for her to ask for a review. Mrs X has already exercised her right to a statutory review of the homelessness and suitability decisions.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council demoting her housing priority from Band A to Band D following her refusal to accept an offer of a new build tenancy. She also says the Council discharged its homelessness duty to her after the offer was rejected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. 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 34(3), as amended)

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

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X was accepted as being homeless in 2021 and was placed in temporary accommodation. She has made complaints about disrepair and the suitability of the accommodation due to distance from her children’s schools. She has involved solicitors over the repair issues and also asked the Council to carry out a review of suitability under the Housing Act 1996. The Council concluded the review in April 2024 and did not uphold her claim. It advised her of a right to appeal the decision to the County Court but she did not do so.
6. In October 2023 the Council offered Mrs X a new build property which it considered suitable for her needs. She refused the offer and the Council informed her that it had decided to discharge its homelessness duty to her because she had refused a reasonable offer. She asked for a review of the decision and this is ongoing with an outcome due in September. If the review is negative she will have a right to appeal the decision in the County Court.
7. in January the Council told her that her housing banding on the register had been demoted from Band A to Band D because she had exhausted the offers available to her in that banding. This is part of the Council’s housing allocations policy and applies for a period of 12 months. As it is a decision about allocations Mrs X could ask for a review of the decision under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. In this case the Council has followed the requirements of the legislation and its allocations policy and she has used her right of review in two complaints and could also ask for a review about her application banding.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application and its decision to discharge its homelessness duty to Mrs X. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision on the housing application and it is reasonable for her to ask for a review. Mrs X has already exercised her right to a statutory review of the homelessness and suitability decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman