The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: A man complained that the Council unreasonably ended its homelessness duty in his case after he refused an offer of accommodation. But we will not investigate this complaint as the man has or had a statutory right of appeal regarding the Council’s decision, and we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking in this respect.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The law says we normally cannot 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Housing Act 1996 (‘the Act’) gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their homelessness application. This includes decisions about the suitability of accommodation they are offered to meet a housing duty, and about ending the housing duty. If an applicant wants to challenge a negative review decision they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
A few years ago Mr X applied to the Council because he was homeless. The Council accepted it owed Mr X a housing duty and placed him in temporary accommodation.
Recently the Council offered Mr X a first-floor property it considered was suitable for his needs. This was a ‘final accommodation offer’ under the Act, which meant the Council’s duty to house Mr X would end whether or not he accepted the offer.
Mr X turned down the offer on the basis he had a medical need for a ground floor property. He also said the Council had previously promised him ground floor accommodation. But the Council took the view that the offered property was suitable and so ended its housing duty in his case.
Mr X asked for a review of the Council’s finding. But following a review the Council upheld its decision that the property was suitable for Mr X and his refusal of the offer had brought its housing duty in his case to an end.
But I have concluded that we should not investigate Mr X’s complaint about this matter.
First, the law says we usually cannot investigate a complaint where someone could take the matter to court. The Council’s review decision letter clearly informed Mr X that he could appeal to the county court if he wanted to dispute the decision on a point of law. I see no reason why Mr X should not have used his right of appeal if he felt the review decision was flawed. Also, if Mr X has now missed the deadline for making an appeal, he may still be able to make a late appeal at this stage if he had good reason for not appealing on time.
Second, unlike the courts we have no powers to overturn homelessness decisions or rule on points of law. So we cannot make our own decision about Mr X’s homelessness case or force the Council to change its decision. Therefore, as Mr X wants the Council to reverse its decision and resume its duty to house him, I do not see we could achieve the outcome he is seeking from his complaint..
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council unreasonably decided to end its homelessness duty in his case after he refused an offer of accommodation. This is because Mr X has or had court appeal rights he could use to challenge the Council’s decision if there was a point of law at issue, and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants from his complaint.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman