Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that she became intentionally homeless. This is because it would have been reasonable for her to have used her right of appeal to the county court.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council wrongly decided she became intentionally homeless. She says the decision has caused her distress and she is now living in accommodation she cannot afford.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X was previously housed in temporary accommodation under the Council’s homelessness duties. The Council made her a final offer of accommodation which she refused because she considered it unsuitable. The Council then decided Miss X had become intentionally homeless due to refusing the final offer and ended its homelessness duty to her. Miss X then asked the Council to review the decision, which it upheld on review.
7. The Council told Miss X she could appeal to the county court within 21 days if she believed the decision involved an error of law. Miss X did not appeal. She says she did not appeal because of the mental distress she was experiencing at the time and because she was focused on securing accommodation and getting her children in school.
8. Miss X’s complaint turns on whether the accommodation the Council offered was suitable, as legally defined. That is a point of law, so the restriction in paragraph 3 applies.
9. I recognise Miss X was dealing with a difficult situation at the time she had the right of appeal, including the impact on her mental health and arranging accommodation and schooling for her family. However, similar pressures arise in many homelessness cases where applicants receive an unfavourable decision. While this may have caused Miss X some difficulty appealing, I am not persuaded that it made it unreasonable to expect her to do so. The county court was the appropriate route to challenge the decision

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for her to use her right of appeal to the court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman