Summary: A man complained that the Council had unreasonably ended its housing duty in his case after he refused an offer of accommodation. But we will not investigate this matter because the man had court appeal rights he could have used to challenge the Council’s decision.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we normally cannot 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 Mr C provided with his complaint. I also gave Mr C the chance to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view in his case. In addition I took account of documents provided by the Council.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Housing Act 1996 (“the Act”) says that where someone is homeless and eligible for assistance, councils have a legal duty to try and relieve their homelessness.

5. 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 about ending the housing duty in their case. If an applicant wants to dispute a negative review decision, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
6. Mr C applied to the Council as homeless. The Council accepted it had a duty to help Mr C resolve his homelessness. It also placed Mr C’s family in emergency accommodation.
7. Later the Council offered Mr C a private rented property in another part of London, which it considered was suitable for his family’s needs. This was a ‘final accommodation offer’ under the Act, which meant the Council’s duty to house Mr C would end whether he accepted or refused the property.
8. Mr C turned down the property because it was too far from the Council’s area where he had lived for many years and where his children went to school. The Council then ended its housing duty in his case.
9. Mr C asked the Council to review its decision that the property was suitable accommodation for his family. But the Council upheld its decision on review. It also stopped paying for his temporary accommodation.
10. However I have decided that we should not investigate Mr C’s complaint.
11. In particular, the law says we normally cannot investigate a complaint where someone could take the matter to court. As Mr C received a negative review decision he then had a right of appeal to the county court if there was a point of law at issue. I see no reason why Mr C should not be expected to have used his court appeal rights if he considered that the Council’s decision in his case was legally wrong.
12. In addition we, unlike the courts, have no powers to make rulings on points of law or overturn homelessness decisions. So I do not see we could achieve the outcome Mr C wants which is for the Council to change its decision and make him another offer of accommodation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its housing duty in his case after he refused an offer of accommodation. This is because Mr C had court appeal rights he could have used to dispute the Council’s decision in his case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman