Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to Miss X’s homelessness. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation. It was also reasonable for Miss X to use her statutory right of appeal to the county court against the Council’s decision she made herself intentionally homeless.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council handled her homelessness. Her complaints included the Council:
• accepted a local connection referral from another council but then refused to provide emergency accommodation in that council’s area;
• delayed issuing a decision on her homelessness;
• wrongly decided she was intentionally homeless; and
• did not respond to her complaints and review requests.
2. Miss X said the matter meant she and her daughter have been homeless since August 2024. She wanted the Council to provide her accommodation and refund debts she has accrued through paying for accommodation herself.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council has acknowledged some delays in it issuing decisions to Miss X, and apologised. It explained the delays were largely due to the significant length of Miss X’s correspondence. The delays did not affect the outcome, because the Council’s decision that Miss X was intentionally homeless did not change.
8. Considering the timescales and the circumstances, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way of delay that would warrant investigation by the Ombudsman, nor is there evidence any fault we may find caused Miss X significant injustice.
9. Once the Council had issued its review decision, confirming its view Miss X was intentionally homeless, Miss X had a statutory right of appeal to the county court. It was reasonable for her to use this right. We are not an appeal body and we will not investigate the decision instead of the court, which is best placed. We cannot achieve the outcome Miss X seeks, as the correct way to challenge the Council’s decision with a view to obtaining accommodation was via the courts.
10. The Council accepted a local connection referral from another council because it accepted that Miss X’s local connection was to its area. The Council decided not to accommodate Miss X pending its homelessness review decision. The Council was not under an obligation to accommodate Miss X pending review. It had discretion to do so, and it properly considered this discretion but decided it would not provide her accommodation. Miss X disagrees with its decision, but this does not mean the Council was at fault. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council came to this decision, so we will not investigate this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, and it was reasonable for Miss X to use her statutory right of appeal to the county court to challenge the Council’s decision she was intentionally homeless.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman