Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty because it was reasonable for him to exercise his rights of review and appeal. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council decided his priority on its housing register to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s lack of support with his housing situation and said the Council had failed to properly consider his health conditions. He says the Council’s lack of support had affected his mental health.

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)
4. 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 or continue 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X approached the Council as homeless. The Council accepted a main housing duty. It offered him a property in May 2024. Mr X refused the property. The Council discussed his reasons for refusing and explained the consequences of doing so.
8. On 21 June 2024 it ended the main housing duty because Mr X had refused a suitable offer of housing. Its letter explained:
• why it considered the housing offered was suitable;
• he would have reduced priority on its housing register as a result of his refusal; and
• set out his right to ask for a review of its decision within 21 days.
9. Mr X did not ask for a review but made a formal complaint four months later.
10. Mr X had the right to ask for a review of the Council’s decision if he disagreed with it. If he was unhappy with the outcome of that review, he would have had a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law. It was reasonable for him to exercise his rights of review and appeal. Therefore, we will not investigate his complaint about the Council’s homelessness decision.
11. As a result of refusing the housing offered, the Council also reduced his priority on its housing register, which was in line with its published allocations scheme. Mr X had an internal right of review only in relation to the housing register decision and it was reasonable for him to ask for a review if he disagreed with it. In any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had rights of review and appeal and it was reasonable for him to exercise them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman