Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal some of the decisions and there is insufficient injustice caused by the remaining matters.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council withdrew his housing application after he did not accept an offer of accommodation within 24 hours. He says he was unwell when the offer was made by email and was therefore unable to respond. He also says he was not advised of the consequences of not accepting the offer or of the 24‑hour deadline for acceptance.

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)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X approached the Council as homeless. The Council accepted a prevention duty towards him and made him an offer of out‑of‑area private rented accommodation. The offer explained that not accepting the accommodation would end the Council’s homelessness duties towards Mr X.
8. Three days after receiving the offer, Mr X responded to the Council explaining why he felt the offer was not suitable and why he chose not to accept it. The Council replied that, because Mr X had not responded within 24 hours, it treated this as non‑acceptance and closed his housing application.
9. Mr X says his lack of response should not have been taken as refusal because he was unwell and unable to respond within 24 hours.
10. When making the offer, the Council should have taken reasonable steps to contact Mr X. It should not have treated non‑response as non‑acceptance after only one attempt to contact him. This is likely to be fault. However, Mr X wrote to the Council explaining he would not accept the offer because the property was not suitable. There is therefore insufficient injustice arising from the Council not taking reasonable steps to contact Mr X because Mr X has indicated he would not have accepted the offer had further attempts to contact him been made.
11. We will not investigate matters relating to the Council’s later decision that Mr X was not in priority need and its decision not to accept the main housing duty. This is because these decisions carry a right of appeal to the County Court. If Mr X disagrees with those decisions, it would be reasonable for him to use that right.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal some of the decisions made and there is insufficient injustice caused by the remaining matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman