Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled her homelessness and housing application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation and it is reasonable for the complainant to have appealed to the County Court

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council removed her housing application priority banding without a proper review and failed to properly consider her medical evidence. Miss X stated that this has caused her stress, anxiety and left her without secure housing. She would like the Council to review her case, reinstate her priority banding, apologise for its errors and improve its processes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X joined the housing register in February 2023, she then made a homelessness application which the Council accepted in March 2024.
8. Miss X said the Council removed her housing application priority banding without carrying out a proper review.
9. A Council can end its homelessness duty by offering accommodation it considers suitable. Anyone who believes the Council’s offer is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the offer was unsuitable, the offer will not stand. If the review decides the offer was suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204).
10. In its complaint response, the Council confirmed that it had offered Miss X what it deemed as suitable accommodation in November 2024 and therefore ended its housing duty in April 2025. Miss X asked for a review of this decision. The Council completed a review in June 2025 which considered Miss X’s arguments and medical evidence. The review concluded the property offered to Miss X was suitable and informed Miss X that its decision could be appealed at county court.
11. Alongside this, the Council removed Miss X’s housing allocations priority banding because she had refused the offer of suitable accommodation. Under the Council’s housing allocations policy, an applicant may lose their priority banding if they refuse a property.
12. We will not investigate the Council’s decision to remove priority banding. The Council made the decision in line with its housing allocations policy. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. If Miss X disagreed with the Council’s decision the accommodation was suitable, it was reasonable for her to exercise her right of appeal to county court.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation and it is reasonable for Miss X to have appealed the Council’s decision to county court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman