Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to discharge its homelessness duty. It was reasonable for Ms X to appeal the Council’s decision to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to discharge its homelessness duty and cancel her temporary accommodation following her refusal to accept a reasonable offer of alternative accommodation. She disputes that she refused the offer and says that her review request was delayed.

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)
3. 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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X was in temporary accommodation under the Council’s homelessness duty when she asked to be moved to more suitable accommodation in 2024. The Council offered her different accommodate which it considered as suitable for her housing needs. Ms X says she initially rejected it because of the short notice given on seeing the property. The Council then discharged its homeless duty because it said she had rejected a reasonable offer of accommodation.
7. Ms X challenged the decision through her solicitor and in August asked for a review under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996. The Council delayed deciding her review beyond the required 8-week timescale and she complained to us. The Council made its review decision in early 2025 and the review upheld the decision that it no longer owed her a homelessness duty and that her current temporary accommodation would be ended.
8. The Council’s review letter advised Ms X how to seek an appeal to the County Court within 21 days if she wished to challenge the decision further. Ms X has not appealed the decision so far. She would need to seek advice form her solicitors about submitting a late appeal.
9. We cannot overturn a council’s decision on a homeless application where it is reasonable to use the review and appeal procedure provided by the homelessness legislation. The Council did delay the review decision beyond the 8-week period but the outcome was the same as the initial decision and Ms X was housed in her existing temporary accommodation during this time.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to discharge its homelessness duty. It was reasonable for Ms X to appeal the Council’s decision to the County Court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman