Manchester City Council

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s housing because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

The complaint

Mr X complains the Council wrongly declined to carry out a review into the fact he may be offered private rented housing in the future.

He said the decision has caused him and his family distress and wants the Council to review it.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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

Reviews of homelessness decisions If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main housing duty. Generally the council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193) If a homeless applicant does not agree that an offer of social housing or private rented accommodation is suitable for their needs, they can ask for a review of its suitability within 21 days of being notified of the decision. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of the date of the review request.

In the case of an adverse decision, applicants can appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204) Unless it is not reasonable for a person to do so, the Ombudsman will expect a complainant to use their county court appeal right to resolve disputes of this kind, rather than the Ombudsman. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))

My findings

In November 2025 the Council accepted a main housing duty to Mr X and his family. It said it would discharge its duty with an offer of suitable, settled accommodation and that this may be private-rented accommodation with a tenancy of twelve months or more. The Council did not make any formal offer of accommodation in this letter. At that time, Mr X and his family were still living in temporary accommodation.

Mr X asked the Council to carry out a s.202 review because he said it would not be suitable for the Council to discharge its homelessness duty to the family in future with any offer of any private-rented accommodation, as they would need social housing. The Council said this was not a valid s.202 review request and so rejected it.

The law is clear that councils can discharge a main housing duty to homeless applicants with an offer of either private rented, or social, housing. However any accommodation offered must be suitable for the needs of the applicant and their household.

If the Council makes Mr X an offer of settled accommodation in future and he does not agree it is suitable he can request a s.202 suitability review at that stage and this will be followed by a county court appeal right if the Council does not find in his favour.

However Mr X has not yet been made an offer of accommodation and so the Council cannot assess the suitability of any offer. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to carry out a s.202 review that would justify investigating this complaint further.

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman