Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Mr X’s homelessness application. He has exercised his right of review and it was reasonable to appeal to County Court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to end its main homelessness duty in 2024 because it says he made himself intentionally homeless. He says he will have no accommodation because his temporary housing has been cancelled.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X was homeless when he approached the Council in 2024. The Council accepted a duty towards him because his partner was pregnant. It offered him temporary accommodation in hotel accommodation which he had been previously occupying under the Relief Housing Duty.
6. In November 2024 the Council offered him temporary accommodation in an apartment which he turned down because it was above a public house and he may be at risk from a gang in the area. A few weeks later the Council offered him another temporary accommodation property which he accepted.
7. Within a few days of moving in Mr X compared to the Council about the property being unhygienic and that he had seen rats and flies. The Council told the landlord of the property who arranged for a pest controller to visit the same day. No rats were seen but the site was baited. The contractor returned the following week to assess the bait. He said Mr X was threatening, abusive and started filming him on his mobile phone. This was reported to the landlord who decided to issue a notice to quit for the safety of the staff.
8. The Council decided to end it main housing duty to Mr X because he had caused himself to be intentionally homeless. It wrote to him and he immediately asked for a review of the decision under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 Part 7. The Council sent him its final review decision in January 2025. The review upheld the original decision that he was intentionally homeless after depriving himself of accommodation. The decision letter advised Mr X of his right to appeal to the County Court within 21 days.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. We cannot overturn a decision made by a council on a homelessness application. We would expect someone to use the review/appeal procedure provided by the legislation. Mr X used the review procedure and it was reasonable for him to pursue it further.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Mr X’s homelessness application. He has exercised his right of review and it was reasonable to appeal to County Court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman