Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty because she had refused an offer of suitable temporary accommodation. Ms X had appeal rights, and it was reasonable for her to exercise these. In any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making nor in the way it ended the temporary accommodation to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council discharged its homelessness duty in December 2024 without properly considering her concerns or the medical evidence she provided. She also since she had now been asked to leave her temporary accommodation, but the Council had not gone through a formal eviction process. Ms X said the Council’s actions had caused emotional distress and she felt ignored and powerless.

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.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. The Council owed Ms X a main housing duty and had arranged temporary accommodation (TA). In May 2024, she raised concerns about the TA, including about the travelling time for her children to get to school and about the safety of the stairs. The Council carried out a review of the suitability of the TA and agreed it would put her on the transfer list for alternative TA. In July 2024, Ms X reported she had suffered a hand injury after falling down the stairs.
8. In September 2024, the Council offered alternative TA, but this offer was later withdrawn because the property needed some repair work, which meant it was not available for Ms X to move to straightaway.
9. On 3 October 2024, the Council offered another property. This was a two bedroom flat in a building with a lift. Its offer letter explained the property was suitable, based on the assessment it had carried out earlier in 2024. It explained the possible consequences of refusing, including that it could end its housing duty, and said she could accept the property whilst also asking for a review of its suitability.
10. On 9 October, the Council sent a further letter, which said Ms X needed to accept the offer by 5 p.m. the next day.
11. On 11 October, Ms X said she was in pain after surgery to her hand the previous month. The Council asked her to clarify whether she was refusing the offer or wanted to delay moving. Ms X said she was refusing the offer because it would mean her son and daughter would need to share a bedroom, which was not appropriate. On 15 October, Ms X confirmed she was refusing the offer and, in response to that, the Council wrote to her ending its homelessness duty. It said it was satisfied the property offered was suitable and addressed the concerns Ms X had raised. It explained she could ask for a review of this decision and said she would need to leave the TA by 13 November.
12. Despite giving notice to end the TA, the Council allowed Ms X to remain there pending the review. It issued a “minded to” letter in November (which Ms X said she did not receive) and a review decision on 9 December 2024. It said it was satisfied the TA offered was suitable and explained its reasons for deciding this in detail. It also addressed the specific concerns Ms X had raised, including children sharing. It explained the property had two bedrooms and a living room that could be used for sleeping, so it was not necessary for children of the opposite sex to share a room. It explained Ms X could appeal to the county court on a point of law.
13. In June 2025, it gave Ms X one weeks’ notice to leave her current TA.
14. Ms X raised further concerns about the decision through the Council’s complaints process, which the Council responded to in July and early September.

My assessment

15. Ms X had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law if she was unhappy with the Council’s review decision. It was reasonable for her to use her court appeal rights because only the court could say whether the property offered was legally suitable and only the court could quash the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty.
16. In any case, we are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the TA offered was suitable or whether the decision to end the homelessness duty was correct. We can consider the decision-making process but, unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
17. The Council considered the information it had about Ms X’s housing needs when offering alternative TA in October 2024. In its final notification letter, it addressed the concerns she raised and explained why they were not valid reasons for refusing. It also explained she could accept the offer whilst also asking for a suitability review and it warned her that refusing the offer may mean it ended its homelessness duty. Ms X confirmed her refusal of the offer, and the Council ended the duty.
18. On review, the Council considered the suitability of the TA offered and explained its reasons for deciding the property was suitable in detail. This included, but was not limited to, explaining why its size was sufficient for the needs of the family, its location was suitable relative to schools and employment, and how it had considered the family’s medial needs.
19. Based on this, the Council considered all the factors we would expect and set out its reasons in detail. There was no undue delay in making its decision and, in any case, it allowed Ms X to remain in her current TA until after the review decision was issued. There is therefore insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify further investigation.
20. The Council was not required to provide TA after it ended its homelessness duty in October 2024. Therefore, it was not fault for it to give notice for Ms X to leave the TA at that stage. It had a power, but not a duty, to provide TA pending the review outcome and, to its credit, it did agree Ms X could remain in the TA during the review period.
21. Where a person occupies TA under licence, rather than a tenancy, the Council is not required to go through a court process to evict them, it simply needs to give notice asking them to leave. The Council told Ms X on several occasions from October 2024 that she would need to leave her current TA if a suitable offer was refused and in its review decision it explained she now needed to make her own arrangements. Following the review decision, it was entitled to give Ms X reasonable notice to leave the TA but did not formally end the TA until 1 July 2025, six months later. In the circumstances, there is insufficient evidence of fault in relation to the ending of the TA, to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she had appeal rights and it was reasonable for her to exercise them. In any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in its deciding-making or in the way it ended the TA, to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman