Westminster City Council (25 010 186)
Category : Housing > Homelessness
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 13 Oct 2025
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a refused homelessness application. This is because Mr X could have appealed the decision in court, and it would have been reasonable to expect him to do so.
The complaint
- Mr X complains the Council refused his homelessness application. He disputes its decision as a misinterpretation of the law.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mr X.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- The Council refused Mr X’s homelessness application, saying he was not eligible for homelessness help because of his immigration status. Mr X used his right to have the decision reviewed, but the Council upheld the decision to refuse his application on these grounds.
- The Housing Act 1996 gives people the right to appeal such refusals to the County Court on a point of law, and the Council advised Mr X of this right. As the law expressly provides this right for such situations, we normally expect people to use it. Mr X could have sought legal advice. There might be a potential cost to court action, but that is not in itself automatically a reason to consider court action unreasonable. Mr X could have got help with court costs if he was eligible and could have asked for his costs if his court action succeeded.
- Mr X has a lifelong medical condition. This alone does not make it unreasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed the decision as Mr X could have requested disability-related adjustments from the court, if needed.
Final decision
- We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of Mr X’s homelessness application. It was reasonable to expect Mr X to challenge the review by way of an appeal to the County Court.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman