The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision-making regarding her homelessness application. This is because Miss X has already taken the matter to the County Court. We cannot investigate matters which have been subject to court proceedings, regardless of the outcome.
The complaint
Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. She complains the Council: offered her unsuitable private rental accommodation that did not meet her and her young child’s needs. Miss X complains the Council incorrectly described the accommodation as on the ground floor, when it was in fact a first-floor property with internal stairs and no lift. She says the Council failed to consider her Personalised Housing Plan or properly assess her medical evidence, both of which showed such accommodation was unsuitable based on Miss X’s medical conditions and the impact this would have on caring for her child; following a review, upheld its decision that the property was suitable. She says this led to the Council ending the main housing duty and cancelling her temporary accommodation; and, took six months to complete the suitability review, with repeated extensions to the 56-day statutory timeframe.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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) 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: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(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
Miss X says she was offered unsuitable accommodation by the Council under its homelessness duty. The Council offered the accommodation in early June 2025.
The next day, Miss X sent the Council a review request. She said the accommodation was unsuitable for her medical needs.
In late December, the Council sent Miss X the outcome of its suitability review. It rejected her claims the accommodation was unsuitable or that its discharge of its duty was unreasonable.
Miss X appealed the review decision to the County Court.
We cannot investigate complaints about matters which have been subject to court proceedings, regardless of the outcome. Miss X has already taken court action on parts a and b of her above complaint. That means we cannot investigate these parts of her complaint. The restriction in paragraph two prevents us from investigating.
This is the case even though the County Court appeal was settled by consent order after the Council agreed to take certain steps, including withdrawing the initial review decision and carrying out a new review. The Council subsequently carried out the new review, which led to it deciding the accommodation offered was unsuitable. The Ombudsman lost jurisdiction when Miss X made the court claim, irrespective of what later happened to the claim.
So far as Miss X complains the Council failed to carry out the initial review within 56 days and made repeated extensions, we will not investigate this part of the complaint. In its initial review from December 2025, the Council decided to uphold the original decision that the accommodation offered was suitable. Any delays in completing the review process did not affect the outcome. So, there is insufficient injustice to justify our further involvement. Also, based on the evidence I have seen, Miss X had instructed a solicitor. In these circumstances, when Miss X had a legal representative, it is reasonable to have expected Miss X to have used her right to apply to the County Court if the Council was taking longer that the statutory review period to complete the review. For these reasons, we will not investigate part c of the complaint.
Final decision
We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision-making regarding her homelessness application. Miss X has taken the matter to the County Court. We cannot investigate matters which have been subject to court proceedings, regardless of the outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman