Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other Reference 25-008-300 Sector Housing Category Homelessness Decided 10 March 2026

View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council making an unsuitable offer of temporary accommodation. It was reasonable for Ms X to use the review and appeal procedure available under the homelessness legislation to challenge the Council’s decision.

The complaint

Ms X complained about the Council offering her temporary accommodation which was unsuitable for her family’s needs.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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))

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.

I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

Ms X applied to the Council as homeless in 2018 and it accepted her under the full housing duty. She was living in temporary accommodation which had been in her mother’s name previously. The Council made her an offer of alternative accommodation in 2025 when it told her a suitable vacancy had arisen.

Ms X says the accommodation offered was unsuitable for her needs and rejected the offer. She told the Council it was unsuitable on medical grounds and too far from her support network. In July 2025 Ms X complained to us about the Council’s offer.

The Council wrote to Ms X a few weeks later and informed her that it has discharged its homelessness duty because she had refused the offer. Ms X had a right to challenge both the suitability of the offer and the decision to discharge the homelessness duty by way of a review under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 Part 7. Ms X submitted a review request to challenge those decisions in August 2025. She was given an extension to make any additional representations by September and the Council started possession action to recover her existing temporary accommodation following her rejection of the offer.

We cannot overturn a council’s decision on an applicant’s homelessness application. If someone believes temporary accommodation is unsuitable or they want to challenge a decision to end the homelessness duty they can use the review and appeal procedure available under the legislation. Ms X has exercised her review right and there is a further right of appeal to the courts under s.204.

Final decision

We will not investigate this complaint about the Council making an unsuitable offer of temporary accommodation. It was reasonable for Ms X to use the review and appeal procedure available under the homelessness legislation to challenge the Council’s decision.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-011-062 Other
25-017-157 Other
25-015-501 Other
25-004-739 Upheld
25-009-905 Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation