Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to Miss X’s homelessness. It was reasonable for her to use her statutory right of appeal to the county court. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to accommodate her pending review of its decision it did not owe her the main housing duty.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council handled her homelessness. Her complaints included the Council:
• refused her homelessness application, wrongly deciding her local connection was with another council;
• subsequently referred her to that council; and
• refused to provide emergency accommodation pending review of its decision.
2. Miss X said the matter meant she and her daughter have been homeless since August 2024. She wanted the Council to provide accommodation, refund debts she has accrued through paying for accommodation, and help her obtain suitable private rented accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. (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 the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. When a person has a statutory appeal right relating to a decision the Council has taken, we will normally expect them to use that right. Miss X’s complaint is partly about the Council’s decision it did not owe her the main housing duty due to her having a local connection to another council.
8. This is a decision Miss X could appeal via the county court. It was reasonable for her to use her right of appeal, and we will not therefore investigate this matter. The Council’s decision to refer Miss X to the other council is inextricably linked to this and we will also not consider that.
9. The Council’s decision not to provide Miss X with accommodation pending review of the above decision is not something Miss X could appeal, so we have discretion to consider that decision.
10. The Council set out clear reasoning for its decision not to provide Miss X with accommodation pending review. Where a Council has made its decision properly, we cannot question the outcome. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council made this decision to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman. Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but that alone does not mean it was at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it was reasonable for her to use her statutory right of appeal to the county court, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the remaining parts of her complaint to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman