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

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council declining her homeless application because it says she had already been accepted for the homeless duty by a neighbouring authority. She says the Council disregarded the provisions of guidance in the Homelessness Code of Guidance. She also says it has no emergency or temporary accommodation available in its own area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council. I have also considered the Homelessness Code of Guidance which councils are required to have regard to when making decisions on homeless applications.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X approached the Council as being threatened with homelessness in 2023. She had previously approached a neighbouring council where she was resident some months previously and that authority had accepted the homelessness prevention duty.
6. The Council made enquiries of the neighbouring authority and it confirmed that it had offered her temporary and permanent accommodation in the previous months. The Council conclude that Ms X was not homeless and that she had been offered a tenancy which she had subsequently accepted by the other authority.
7. Councils must consider applications with regard to the Homeless Code of Guidance. The Code requires authorities which have been approached simultaneously by an applicant to decide which will accept the duty under the legislation. In this case Ms X had already been accepted for the homeless duty by the other authority before she contacted the Council. The duty to make accommodation available had been met even though Ms X rejected it as unsuitable. The suitability of what was offered is subject to a right of appeal but this would have been to the neighbouring authority which made the offer.
8. The Council did not offer Ms X emergency or temporary accommodation outside the area because no homeless duty was identified.
9. 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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman