Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s offer of unsuitable temporary accommodation. It was reasonable for Ms X to use the review/appeal procedure available under the homelessness legislation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s offer of temporary accommodation which she says was unsuitable for her needs and involved an illegal unregistered house in multiple occupation. She says the Council ended its homeless duty to her by suggesting she was intentionally homeless for refusing the offer.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide 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))

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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X says the Council offered her unsuitable temporary accommodation under its homelessness duty. She says the location and type of housing was unsuitable and that the property was unregistered housing in multiple accommodation (HMO). She says the Council used an unsuitable offer refusal to decide that she was intentionally homeless.
7. The Council says it did not discharge its homelessness duty to Ms X following her rejection of the offer and it considered a review of suitability which Ms X submitted. The offer was subsequently withdrawn to allow Ms X to remain under the homeless duty. However, the review upheld the decision that the accommodation was suitable and that the HMO was registered since 2024.
8. Ms X could have challenged the review decision by exercising her right to appeal to the County Court. Instead, her legal representatives threatened to take judicial review proceedings in the High Court.
9. We will not investigate this compalint because it was reasonable for Ms X to pursue the review/appeal remedy provided by the legislation. There was no discharge of homelessness duty to challenge and the Council has subsequently offered her a tenancy under the main duty which she has accepted.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s offer of unsuitable temporary accommodation. It was reasonable for Ms X to use the review/appeal procedure available under the homelessness legislation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman