Summary: Mr X complained about the Council withdrawing its homeless duty to him after he refused temporary accommodation which he says was unsuitable. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X can appeal to the County Court on a point of law if he wishes to challenge the Council’s decision to discharge its homeless duty.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to discharge its homeless duty to him following his refusal to accept temporary accommodation.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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 have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mr X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X applied to the Council as homeless in 2017 and was placed in temporary accommodation. In July 2019 the landlord of the property applied to the court to recover his property because it was to be sold. The Council told Mr X that it would have to find new accommodation quickly and it made an offer of a property outside the borough in a neighbouring authority.
6. Mr X complained about the offer and said it was unsuitable because it was some miles from his support network and that a move to another borough would affect his wife’s mental health and the depression she was suffering. He told the Council he had been advised his current home would be long-term.
7. The Council assessed Mr X’s family circumstances, including medical and social services advice. It concluded that the accommodation outside the borough was suitable for Mr X’s family needs and that it was a suitable offer under the law. It issued it’s views in a ‘minded to’ letter about discharging its homeless duty.
8. When its decision was issued Mr X asked for a review of the decision and the offer. The Council reviewed his case but concluded that the offer of accommodation and the subsequent decision to discharge its duty was reasonable.
9. Mr X was advised by the Council that if he wishes to challenge its decision, he should seek to appeal to the County Court within 21 days.
10. The Ombudsman cannot determine if a Council’s decision to discharge its homeless duty was fair if it has followed the correct procedures and legislation. Mr X should appeal to the County Court if he wishes to challenge its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X can appeal to the County Court on a point of law if he wishes to challenge the Council’s decision to discharge its homeless duty

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman