Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council ending its homelessness duty. Ms X could reasonably have used her right to appeal to a court. The complaint is also late without good enough reason to investigate it now.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council ended its homelessness duty to her without properly considering the circumstances.

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. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council owed Ms X and her family a homelessness duty to arrange accommodation. The Council offered Ms X a property and invited her to view it the next day. Ms X says she could not get time off work at short notice and the Council did not agree to rearrange the viewing for a time when she was not working. The Council ended its homelessness duty saying Ms X had not accepted the offer. Ms X considers that decision was wrong. She also says the property was not suitable because it was in an area where her family was at risk.
8. The central point of the complaint is Ms X’s disagreement with the Council ending the homelessness duty. Ms X used her legal right to ask the Council to review that decision. The Council’s review decision in February 2024 upheld the original decision. Ms X then had 21 days to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204) Arguments about whether the Council had allowed Ms X a reasonable opportunity to consider the offer, and about whether the property was anyway suitable, relate to points of homelessness law. A court appeal could have included all Ms X’s reasons for disagreement with the Council ending the duty, including arguments that Ms X had not had a reasonable opportunity to consider the offer, had not actually refused the offer and that the offer had anyway been unsuitable because of the location.
9. The Council says Ms X’s solicitors indicated to it in February 2024 they were considering a court appeal. If Ms X used her court appeal right, we cannot consider the complaint, as paragraph 3 explained.
10. If Ms X did not use her appeal right, the restriction in paragraph 2 applies. The law expressly provides this route for challenging such decisions, so we normally expect people to use it. The court could have made a binding decision and overturned the Council’s decision if it saw fit, unlike the Ombudsman. Ms X and her representatives knew about the court appeal right. There might have been a potential cost to court action, but that is not in itself automatically a reason to consider court action unreasonable, and applicants can get help with court costs if they are eligible. Ms X has mental health difficulties, but that does not necessarily make it unreasonable to expect her to have used the appeal right. Ms X could have asked the court to consider making any reasonable adjustments for a disability. Also, Ms X had access to legal help.
11. Overall, I consider it would have been reasonable for Ms X to use her court appeal right when she had it. Therefore it is not for us to investigate whether the Council was at fault for ending the homelessness duty in the way it did.
12. The offer of the viewing and the Council ending its homelessness duty were in July and August 2023. Ms X complained to us 17 months later in January 2025. So the complaint is late and the restriction in paragraph 4 also applies. I appreciate Ms X might have been awaiting the result of the Council’s review of its decision. However, that was known in early February 2024, fewer than 12 months since the events complained of, but Ms X then took another 11 months to complain to us. Ms X also went through the Council’s complaint procedure before coming to us. However, the Council’s final complaint response in May 2024 advised Ms X could now complain to us. A complaint then would have been within 12 months of the events complained of. Instead, Ms X’s solicitors complained in June 2024 to a different ombudsman organisation, which the Council had not suggested and which could not deal with a complaint about these matters. I see no good reason to have made a complaint to the other organisation rather than coming promptly to us as the Council had advised. There was no complaint to us until seven months after the Council’s final complaint response, well over 12 months after the events complained of. I do not see good reason to accept this late complaint now.
13. However, even if the complaint to us was not late, or if there was good reason for the lateness, that would not overcome our other reasons for not investigating as set out in paragraphs 8 to 13 above.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. If Ms X used her court appeal right, we cannot investigate. If Ms X did not use her court appeal right, she could reasonably have done so. Either way, the existence of the court appeal right means we should not investigate. The complaint is also late without good enough reason to investigate it now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman