Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to discharge its homelessness duty. Mr X has used the statutory review process and it was reasonable for him to appeal against the decision to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to discharge its homelessness duty to him following his refusal to accept an offer of accommodation. He says the property offered was unsuitable for his needs and asked for a review of the decision. The review did not uphold his claim.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))

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. Mr X was accepted by the Council under the main homelessness duty in 2024. It accepted that his current accommodation in a caravan on a site was unreasonable to occupy due to its condition. In October it made Mr X an offer of 1-bedroom housing association accommodation.
7. Mr X turned down the offer because he says he needs two bedrooms for when his daughter stays over part of the time. He also said the doorways were too narrow, there was no off-street parking and the garden was not directly accessible for his dogs. He also said he needed a property with a fridge and cooker provided.
8. Mr X asked for a review of the decision under s.202 of the housing Act 1996 to end the housing duty following his refusal. The review was not upheld.
9. The review decision letter advised Mr X of his rights to appeal to the County Court against its decision within 21 days and advised how to go about this. We will not investigate complaints where there is a right of review and further right of appeal to a court or independent tribunal and it is reasonable to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to discharge its homelessness duty. Mr X has used the statutory review process and it was reasonable for him to appeal against the decision to the County Court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman