Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to assist Miss X with her housing problems. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It was reasonable for her to ask the Council for a review if she disagreed with its homelessness decision.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s lack of support in assisting her to find alternative accommodation from her current housing association home. She says she has had her belongings damaged by unknown persons who have accessed her room with a master key.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says she has been trying to find alternative accommodation to her current housing association tenancy in a shared house. She was told by the Council that she is adequately housed and is not eligible for the housing register as a single person with suitable housing for her needs.
6. Miss X says unknown persons have been entering her room and damaging her belongings for some time. She has involved the police and her landlord and has been advised that she would need to consider installing camera surveillance if she does not know who is causing the damage. The Council considered Miss X’s application under its homelessness duty in May 2025. It told her that she was not homeless as she has accommodation which is affordable and has been available on a long-term basis from a social housing landlord since 2019.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. If Miss X wished to challenge the decision on her homelessness application the Council have her details of how to ask for a review under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 and it was reasonable for her to pursue this.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to assist Miss X with her housing problems. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It was reasonable for her to ask the Council for a review if she disagreed with its homelessness decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman