Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to properly assess her housing application. She says she has been a victim of violence and is having to live with the perpetrator even though she applied to move. She says her previous application was closed and a new one was not activated or given the previous status she had.

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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, 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 the Council failed to assess a new housing application which she submitted in 2024 following a decision to end her previous application. She also submitted a homelessness application at the same time.
6. The Council says it decided not to determine her new application and that this was in her own interest because she was being assessed as a homeless applicant. When someone is threatened with homelessness this is a change of circumstances which requires a new housing application assessment. Because of the complex nature of Miss X’s housing situation, it considered that if it determined the application before the homeless duty was considered she may be in a low priority listing or excluded.
7. Miss X has over £15,000 rent arrears associated with her previous tenancy and this would have likely excluded her application under the allocations policy if it had been determined immediately. The Council has accepted Miss X’s homelessness application under the Relief duty and she has been offered interim accommodation. The question of how the rent arrears will affect the final homelessness duty and any future housing application decision is still being considered by the Council.
8. 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.
9. In this case the Council used its discretion in Miss X’s best interests and if she disagrees with any future homelessness decision she will be able to ask for a review of that decision under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996, with further rights of appeal to the court. If she is given a new housing application assessment once her homeless status is decided she will also be able to ask for this to be reviewed.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman