Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a homelessness application. Dr K has the right to appeal to the County Court and it is reasonable to expect him to do so.

The complaint

1. Dr K complains the Council unfairly decided it does not owe him a homelessness duty. He would like the Council to provide suitable accommodation and cover the costs he has incurred for living in hotel accommodation since the start of his homelessness.

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. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Dr K says he lost his accommodation in London and moved to another town over 100 miles away. He continues to stay in a hotel room with his two children and made a homelessness application to Newham Council in early 2024. The Council assessed his application and decided Dr K was not homeless or threatened with homelessness as he owned a property in another country. Dr K asked for a Council review, and it upheld its decision not to owe him a housing duty.
8. The Council told Dr K of his right to appeal the decision to the county court under Section 204 of the Housing Act 1996. It is reasonable to expect Dr K to use his right to appeal to the court.
9. Any other effect on Dr K, such as the cost of his accommodation, is dependent on whether the Council had any obligation towards him. The current evidence does not suggest it did, so we will not investigate this separately because it is too closely related to the main element in the complaint of whether the Council owes Dr K any duty in law.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Dr K’s complaint because it would be reasonable to expect him to use his right to appeal against the Council’s decision to the county court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman