Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint against the Council because there is insufficient evidence of fault it’s decision-making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council were wrong in deciding her housing application. Ms X has been afforded the opportunity to provide supporting documents and did not provide the required information to the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘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 investigation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X wrote to Gedling Borough Council and made a homeless application to join the Housing register through the allocations policy. Ms X expressed that she wishes to be placed in the South Borough of Gedling due to her mother living in the South of the Borough.

A letter from the Social Worker was supplied, however the Council deemed it to be unsafe for Ms X and dependants to be placed in the South Borough of Gedling. This is based on the domestic violence (DV) safeguarding issues under Family Law Act 1996. The evidence shows that the perpetrator has broken court non-molestation order and seen on the road on several occasions. Ms X received a written response from the Council which addressed Ms X’s complaint.

The evidence shows that Ms X’s case was not referred to MARAC as the specific circumstances were not considered “high-risk”, and the police opinion provided does not suggest that Ms X and dependants moving closer to her mother would be safe.

In February 2025, the Council wrote to Ms X explaining that she does not qualify for homelessness as there is no local connection to the Council, attaching the “location connection list 1 and 2”. It is essential for Councils to place people who have fled DV into safe areas to prevent them from harm, protect their children, and provide a secure environment for victims to rebuild their lives.

6. The evidence suggests that the Council have followed the correct processes and adhered to the Housing Options policy, giving due regarding to the care and safety of the family. Under section 11 of the Children Act 1989, a local authority must have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when deciding on homelessness.
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.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint against the Council because there is insufficient evidence of fault in it’s decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman