Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate a woman’s complaint that the Council unreasonably ended its homelessness duty in her case after she turned down an offer of accommodation. This is because the woman had a statutory right of appeal she could have used to challenge the Council’s review decision and, in any case, there is no sign of fault in the way it made that decision.

What I found

5. The Housing Act 1996 (‘the Act’) says councils have a legal duty to secure accommodation for homeless people who are eligible, have a priority need, and are not intentionally homeless. This is often referred to as the ‘main housing duty’.
6. The Act also gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their homelessness application. This includes decisions about the suitability of accommodation they are offered and the ending of the council’s housing duty.
7. If the applicant wants to challenge a negative review decision, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.

What happened

8. Some years ago Mrs B and her disabled husband applied to the Council as homeless. The Council accepted it owed them the main housing duty. It also placed them in temporary accommodation.
9. Last year the Council offered Mrs B a privately rent flat in order to meet the main housing duty in her case. But Mrs B turned down the offer as she considered the property was not suitable for her and her husband’s needs. In particular Mrs B said the property was far from her and her husband’s support network and her college, and that the bedroom was too small.
10. The Council did not accept Mrs B’s refusal reasons and confirmed its view that the property was suitable. Mrs B then asked the Council to review its suitability decision.
11. But following a review the Council upheld its original decision that the flat was suitable accommodation. The Council also confirmed it had ended its housing duty in Mrs B’s case as a result. Mrs B did not appeal to the county court about the Council’s review decision.

Analysis

12. But I consider we should not investigate Mrs B’s complaint. In particular the law says we normally cannot investigate where someone could take the matter to court. When the Council refused Mrs B’s review request she had a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law. But Mrs B has not put forward any reason why she could not have used her appeal rights if she felt the Council’s review decision was unreasonable or wrong in law.
13. In addition, I do not see we would be justified in exercising our discretion to pursue Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s decision, even if she had good reason not to use her court appeal rights.
14. In particular, unlike the courts the Ombudsman has no powers to overturn homelessness decisions or make rulings on points of law. Our role is limited to considering if there is any fault in the way councils deal with homelessness cases. But we cannot question the merits of councils’ decisions unless there is fault in the way those decisions are made.
15. However I am not convinced we have reason to question the Council’s decision in Mrs B’s case. In particular it seems to me the Council’s review decision letter provides a considered analysis of the suitability issue and reaches reasoned conclusions. I do not see any immediate signs in the letter to suggest there was significant fault in the Council’s decision making.
16. In response to my draft decision in her case, Mrs B made an additional complaint about the Council’s delay in dealing with her review request.
17. The law says normally councils should inform the person of its review decision within eight weeks days of receiving a request. In this case the Council took around eight months to send a decision. So it appears there may be some sign of fault on its part regarding this matter.
18. But I am not convinced that we have grounds to pursue this issue in Mrs B’s case. I can see that Mrs B would have suffered some uncertainty as a result of any delay by the Council. However at the end of the day the Council did not uphold Mrs B’s review request. So even if the Council had made a decision sooner it seems the outcome for her regarding her housing case would have been exactly the same.
19. As a result I consider that any delay by the Council in reaching its review decision did not cause Mrs B an injustice which warrants us starting an investigation in her case.

Final decision

20. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty in her case because she refused an offer of suitable accommodation. This is because Mrs B had a potential right of appeal to the county court about the Council’s review decision and, in any event, there is no sign of fault in the way the Council made its decision in her case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman