Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has unreasonably ended its homelessness duty in a woman’s case after she refused an offer of accommodation. This is because the woman has statutory review and appeal rights she can use to challenge the Council’s decision.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or that it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. 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

4. I considered the information Ms X provided with her complaint. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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 (the ‘relief 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 to meet a housing duty, and about ending the relief duty. Review requests normally must be made within 21 days of the applicant receiving the decision letter.
7. If an applicant wants to challenge a negative review decision, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
8. Ms X applied to the Council because she was homeless. The Council accepted it owed Ms X a relief duty and it placed her in interim accommodation.
9. Later on the Council offered Ms X a private rented property it considered was suitable for her needs, which was in a town outside London. This was a ‘final accommodation offer’ under the Act, which meant the Council’s duty to house Ms X would end whether or not she accepted the property.
10. Ms X refused the offer because the property was far from her support network in London, and in view of her daughter’s special needs. The Council then ended its relief duty in her case. The Council’s end of duty letter informed Ms X of her right to a have a review of its decision and about its offer of accommodation.
11. However I have decided that we should not investigate Ms X’s complaint.
12. First, Ms X still has a legal right to a review by the Council regarding its decision to end its relief duty in her case and about the suitability of the offered property. Ms X has already contacted a legal professional for assistance, so I see no reason why she should not be expected to pursue a review.
13. Second, the law says we usually cannot investigate a complaint where someone could take the matter to court. If Ms X has a review and receives a negative decision, she would then have had a right of appeal to the county court if there is a point of law at issue. I also see no reason not to expect Ms X to use her court appeal rights if that proves necessary.
14. In addition, unlike the courts, we have no powers to overturn homelessness decisions or rule on points of law. So I do not see we could achieve the outcome Ms X wants which is for the Council to reverse its decision and offer her a property she considers is suitable.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty in her case after she refused an offer of accommodation. This is because Ms X has review and potential court appeal rights she can use to dispute the Council’s decision in her case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman