Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in issuing its section 202 review decision. The Council has now made its decision and has agreed to apologise for the delay. Further investigation by us is therefore not proportionate.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not issue decisions on his suitability review request and section 202 review request within the statutory timeframes. He says the delay has caused him to remain in unsafe accommodation.
2. He wants the Council to issue him decisions on both his review requests and transfer him to safe accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In July 2025, the Council offered Mr X accommodation under its homelessness duties. Mr X accepted this and the Council discharged its homelessness prevention duty towards him.
9. Mr X then requested:
• a suitability review of his accommodation; and
• a section 202 review of the Council’s decision to end its prevention duty towards him.
10. The Council said it could not consider his suitability review request. Mr X then contacted the Council about his review requests on at least five occasions between August 2025 and October 2025.
11. In November 2025, the Council sent Mr X its minded to letter on the section 202 review request. It then issued its final decision on 10 December 2025 which determined the accommodation was suitable and upheld its decision to end its prevention duty towards him. It told Mr X he could appeal to the County Court if he disagreed with the decision. Mr X says he could not appeal the decision because he is homeless.

Suitability review request

12. A review of the suitability of accommodation is only available in certain circumstances, such as where the Council owes the main housing duty and has placed someone in temporary accommodation.
13. In this case, the Council ended its prevention duty after securing accommodation for Mr X. This means he did not have a right to a separate suitability review. Any challenge to the suitability of the accommodation had to be made through a section 202 review of the decision to end the prevention duty.

Section 202 review request

14. The law says an authority has three weeks from the review request, or from the day of the applicant’s representations in response to a ‘minded to’ letter are received, if the original decision concerned notice to bring the prevention duty to an end.
15. If we were to investigate this complaint it is likely we would find fault causing Mr X injustice because of the Council’s delay in issuing the section 202 review decision.
16. We therefore asked the Council to consider resolving this complaint by:
• making a written apology to Mr X for the injustice caused; and
• reminding staff to complete section 202 review requests in line with the statutory guidance.
17. To its credit, the Council has agreed to complete this action within four weeks of this decision statement. Therefore, investigation by us is not proportionate.

Section 202 review decision

18. If Mr X disagreed with the Council’s section 202 review decision, then it would have been reasonable for him to appeal the decision to the County Court. I acknowledge Mr X’s current circumstances may make it more difficult for him to appeal the decision. However, similar pressures arise in many homelessness cases where applicants receive an unfavourable decision. Therefore, I am not persuaded that it makes it unreasonable for him to do so, and I will not investigate this aspect of his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint and therefore further investigation by us is not proportionate. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the County Court if he disagreed with the Council’s review decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman