Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s review of its decision to discharge its homelessness duty to Miss X. It was reasonable for her to challenge the decision by way of an appeal to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s review of her homelessness case. She says she was offered temporary accommodation which was unsuitable and that the review process was not carried out fairly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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 the complainant and the Council’s review decision.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X says the Council’s review of her housing application and her homelessness case. In October 2024 the Council offered Miss X alternative temporary accommodation and which rejected because she believed it was unsuitable. The Council made a further offer of it in November because it told her that if she declined it then it would end its homelessness duty and she would lose her current accommodation and housing banding.
7. Miss X refused the accommodation and asked the Council for a review of its decision to discharge its homelessness duty. The Council issued a review decision in January 2025 and this upheld the November decision to discharge the homelessness duty. Miss X compared to us about the review process because she believes that this review and a previous one on her housing application were not impartial. I have read the review decision and I can find no evidence that the review process did not follow the review regulations correctly.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. If Miss X wishes to challenge the decision itself she was advised by the Council of her opportunity to seek an appeal in the County Court within 21 days.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s review of its decision to discharge its homelessness duty to Miss X. It was reasonable for her to challenge the decision by way of an appeal to the County Court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman