Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to discharge its homelessness duty. This is because there were appeal rights the complainant could have used.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council ended its homelessness duty even though she did not see the email offering the property. Ms X wants the Council to reverse the decision and offer a property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the homelessness decisions and Council notes. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council accepted a homelessness duty to Ms X. It offered a property to discharge its duty. The property was for rent in the private sector. The law allows councils to discharge the homelessness duty by offering properties in the private sector.
6. The Council had intended to send the property offer letter on 3 July. It made a mistake and sent Ms X the suitability assessment for the property instead of the offer letter. I have not seen the suitability assessment but it probably included details of the property. I have seen Council notes from 3 July which say Ms X had said she would not accept the property because it was a private rental.
7. The Council sent the correct offer letter by email on 5 July. Ms X says she did not see the letter because it went to her spam folder. Ms X says she did not refuse the property because she did not see the offer.
8. I have seen Council notes from 8 July which say Ms X refused to sign the paperwork for the property because it was not social housing.
9. The Council ended its homelessness duty to Ms X because she refused the flat. Ms X asked for a review; she challenged the suitability of the property and the decision to discharge the duty. Her review request included that she did not refuse the property because she did not see the email.
10. The Council reviewed the suitability of the offer and the discharge of duty decision. I have read the review decision and the Council explained in detail why the property was suitable. It also referred to the contacts on 3 and 8 July which suggested Ms X was aware of the offer. The review decision states Ms X told the reviewing officer she would have refused the offer because she wants a social tenancy.
11. The review confirmed the property was suitable and confirmed the decision to discharge the duty. The Council explained Ms X had 21 days to appeal to the court. Ms X did not appeal.
12. I will not investigate this complaint because Ms X could have used her appeal rights if she remained of the view the property was unsuitable or that she had not had the chance to refuse the property. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to use her appeal rights because the court is the appropriate body to consider disputes about homelessness decisions. I have no power to overturn any of the decisions and I cannot decide if the property was suitable or whether the Council was right to discharge the duty. I can say, however, that the Council considered all the relevant issues as part of the review and explained the reasons for the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because Ms X could have used her appeal rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman