Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end the relief duty after she refused an offer of housing because Ms X has appeal rights, which are reasonable for her to exercise. In any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council wrongly ended its homelessness duty when she refused a property offer, despite an ongoing review of the suitability of the offer. Ms X maintains the property offered was not suitable and says the Councils actions caused emotional distress and uncertainty.

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 accepted a relief duty in April 2025 when Ms X became homeless and arranged interim accommodation for her. In May, it made a provisional offer of property A, a two bedroom flat. Ms X did not consider property A was suitable and raised her concerns with the Council. The Council treated this as a request for a review of the suitability of the offer.
8. On 20 June, the Council wrote to make a final offer of property A as an introductory Council tenancy. Its letter explained that:
• Not turning up to the tenancy sign-up would be treated as refusal.
• The consequences of refusing a suitable offer were that the homelessness duty would end and she would be asked to leave her interim accommodation; and
• She could accept the property and ask for a review of its suitability.
9. On 24 June, Ms X confirmed she would not be accepting the offer. The Council wrote to her explaining her options. Ms X did not attend the tenancy sign-up on 1 July and on 4 July, the Council ended the relief duty on the grounds she had refused a suitable offer. It responded to the concerns Ms X had raised and explained why it considered the property offered was suitable. It said she could ask for a review of the decision to end the relief duty.
10. On 8 August, the Council issued its review decision. It addressed the concerns Ms X had raised about the suitability of property A and explained its reasons for deciding the property was suitable for her. It considered the communications with her about the officer and confirmed she had been given appropriate advice about her options and the consequences of refusing the offer. It therefore concluded the Council was entitled to end the relief duty. It set out her court appeal rights.

My assessment

11. Ms X had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law if she disagreed with the review decision. It was reasonable for her to exercise that right because only the court could say whether the property offered was legally suitable and only the court could quash the decision to end the relief duty.
12. The Council gave appropriate advice about Ms X’s options, including that, if she refused a suitable offer, it would end the relief duty. Ms X decided to refuse. This meant the Council considered both the suitability of property A and the decision to end the relief duty when it carried out the review.
13. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions were correct. Unless we find fault in the Council’s decision-making, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
14. On review the Council considered the various concerns she had raised and explained why it did not consider these made property A unsuitable for her. It considered the advice she had been given about her options and concluded that it was entitled to end the relief duty on the basis she had refused a suitable offer of housing. Since the Council considered all relevant factors, explained its reasons and made its decision without delay, there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she had appeal rights that were reasonable for her to exercise and because, in any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman