Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to discharge its homelessness duty following Miss X’s refusal to accept temporary accommodation offered to her. It was reasonable for her to ask for a statutory review of the decision and appeal further to the court if this was unsuccessful.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council offering her temporary accommodation under its homelessness duty which she says was located too far away and could not accept her dog. She says the accommodation was cancelled but she did not formally tell the Council she was refusing it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))

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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X applied to the Council as homeless in 2024. The Council accepted her under the main housing duty and offered her temporary accommodation in a hotel because there is a shortage of social housing vacancies. Miss X says she has a dog and the hotel would not be able to accommodate it. She also says her electric car had run out of charge and she could not attend the accommodation which was five miles away. She raised concerns about the distance of the location from her GP surgery and schools with the Council.
7. The Council says the accommodation was considered to be suitable for her needs and that it was accessible to her GP by car in 18 minutes and by public transport in under 40 minutes which is not unreasonably far. It says that the consequences of not taking up the accommodation offered were made clear to Miss X during a telephone conversation in July.
8. The Council sent Miss X a letter notifying her of its decision to discharge its homelessness duty under s.193 of the housing Act 1996. The letter clearly explained her right to challenge the decision by asking for a review within 21 days. Miss X did not ask for a review or take up the accommodation. Since she complained to us Miss X made a further homeless application in 2025. The Council has again offered temporary accommodation whilst her case is investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to discharge its homelessness duty following Miss X’s refusal to accept temporary accommodation offered to her. It was reasonable for her to ask for a statutory review of the decision and appeal further to the court if this was unsuccessful.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman