Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to determine his review of its homelessness decision in 2025. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask his legal representatives to seek a decision by appealing to the County Court under the homelessness legislation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to respond to his solicitor’s requests for it to decide his s.202 review of its decision to end his homelessness application. His solicitors were forced to threaten court proceedings with a letter before Action before it responded.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X was accepted under the Council’s homelessness duty and placed in interim accommodation whilst the council investigated his case under the Relief duty. In early 2025 the Council was notified by its Social Services team that Mr X had left the accommodation and the country. The Council decided to end its duty and close the accommodation to Mr X.
6. Mr X was absent for two months abroad and told the Council he was unaware he had to notify it of his change in circumstances. The Council questioned his reasons and also his family make up as it believed his child was now living with her mother. Mr X engaged the services of a solicitor to ask he Council for a review of its decision to end the homelessness duty under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 Part 7.
7. The solicitors asked for a review in April 2025. The Council failed to determine the review and Mr X employed another firm of solicitors to issue a pre-action protocol letter to the Council advising it that they would start judicial review proceedings within 14 days. Mr X then complained to us.
8. We will not investigate this compalint. Mr X had legal representation and if a council fails to determine a review under the Housing Act 1996 the applicant can appeal to the County Court to obtain a remedy. Mr X’s legal representatives could have pursued this remedy and chose to seek a judicial review instead.
9. Following Mr X’s compalint to us the Council contacted his solicitors and advised that because he had new circumstances, including a threat of a possessing order he would be best advised to submit a new application with details about which family members were now part of his household. He did this and the Council accepted a prevention duty under the law. It says that Mr X may be considered to be non-priority homeless but if this is decided he can ask for a new review/appeal of that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to determine his review of its homelessness decision in 2025. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask his legal representatives to seek a decision by appealing to the County Court under the homelessness legislation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman