Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not supporting him with his homelessness and failing to find him suitable housing. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, it was reasonable for Mr X to have asked the Council to complete a review.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not supported him with his homelessness and that it has failed to find him suitable housing.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council accepted it owed Mr X the full housing duty in September 2023.
6. In September, the Council made Mr X a final offer of accommodation. Mr X declined to accept as he considered the property to be unsuitable.
7. In November 2023, the Council offered Mr X temporary accommodation, which it considered to be suitable. Mr X declined this offer.
8. As Mr X had refused both offers of accommodation which it considered to be suitable, the Council discharged its main housing duty. The Council issued a letter at the end of November confirming its decision and detailing the reasons for why it considered the accommodation offered to be suitable for him.
9. The decision letter outlined Mr X’s right to request a review if he disagreed with the Council’s decision to end its main housing duty.
10. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. The Council had accepted it owed Mr X the main housing duty and offered Mr X accommodation to meet its duty. As Mr X declined the accommodation offered, the Council discharged its duty. The law allows the Council to do this.
11. If Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision, it was reasonable for him to have asked the Council to review its decision. Mr X had been appropriately notified of his review rights. If Mr X then disagreed with the Council’s review decision, he would have had the right to appeal the decision to the county court.
12. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault with the Council. In addition, it was reasonable for Mr X to have asked the Council to complete a review.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, it was reasonable for Mr X to have asked the Council to complete a review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman