Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty following an offer of accommodation which Mr X says was unsuitable. We will not investigate his complaints about alleged defamation and Human Rights breaches because these are matters which can only be determined by the courts.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council ended its homelessness prevention duty when it offered him a private sector rented property which he believes is unsuitable. He believes the condition of the property breaches his Human Rights and he says the Council did not tell him about his rights to appeal a review decision on this matter and that it made defamatory statements about him.

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 homelessness prevention duty by the Council in 2025. A month later the Council offered a tenancy in the private sector which it believes is suitable for his needs. It ended the homelessness duty and Mr X subsequently asked for a review of suitability under s.202 of the Council Act 1996 Part 7.
6. The Council reviewed the decision and upheld the original view that the offer of accommodation was suitable. The Council advised Mr X of his right to appeal its decision to the County Court within 21 days. Mr X says the Council did not tell him how to submit an appeal.
7. We will not investigate these matters because the Council’s duty extends only to explaining the appeal rights available, the onus is on the applicant to seek legal or other advice and there are several sources of information about appeals from assistance bodies such as Citizens Advice and Shelter. Mr X did seek advice from a solicitor but this was outside the 21-day timescale for taking action.
8. Mr X also claims that the Council made statements which he believes are defamatory. He says he has taken legal advice on this and that he was been told he has a strong case. We cannot investigate complaints about defamation or negligence because these relate to legal torts and are not administrative matters. The courts are best placed to determine such claims.
9. Mr X says he believes the unsuitability of the accommodation which he was offered was a breach of his Human Rights, though he has not specified in what way. The Council told him that it does not consider that Human Rights legislation applied to the suitability of the accommodation and that any repair or property issues fall within the Housing Act 2004 Housing Health and Safety Rating System. It took no action against the landlord under these provisions because he co-operated in resolving some repair matters raised and that Mr X can report any further concerns to its private Sector Housing Team. We cannot decide Human Rights Act breaches because these are also matters which can only be determined by a court.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty following an offer of accommodation which Mr X says was unsuitable. We will not investigate his complaints about alleged defamation and Human Rights breaches because these are matters which can only be determined by the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman