Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in deciding her homelessness application because there is insufficient injustice to justify our involvement. Ms X has rights of review and appeal in relation to its decision she is not in priority need and it is reasonable for her to exercise them.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to support her when she became homeless. She said it closed an application without explanation and failed to address a further application.
2. Ms X said that, as a result of Council failings she was left homeless and without her belongings, which severely affected her mental and physical health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
5. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

8. Ms X contacted the Council in late December 2023 after receiving a notice asking her to leave her private rented accommodation. The Council asked for a copy of the notice, following which it told her the notice was invalid, and she was therefore not at risk of homelessness. Ms X said the Council told her she should not leave the property without a court order.
9. In mid-March, Ms X emailed the Council asking for urgent advice as she had “recently become aware” she had been illegally subletting the accommodation. The Council replied the next day and advised her to seek legal advice.
10. In early April 2024, Ms X made a further homelessness application. She said the person she had been subletting from had changed the locks because the landlord wanted the property back. This meant she had lost her belongings, which she had reported to the police. She asked to be placed on the Council’s housing register as soon as possible.
11. On 12 April, the Council accepted a relief duty and issued a personalised housing plan (PHP). It advised her to look for a shared room in private rented sector (PRS) accommodation and it set out the support it could provide to secure this. Ms X sent two emails asking for updates in May and a further email in June. In August 2024, she made a formal complaint. The Council said Ms X did not look for PRS accommodation in that period as she wanted to secure social housing through its housing register.
12. In September 2024, the Council decided she was homeless and eligible for assistance, but not in priority need. Ms X did not receive the decision, and it was reissued to a different email address in early October. Ms X was unhappy with the decision and asked the Council for a review, which it is currently considering.
13. The Council accepted Ms X’s housing register application. It placed her in band 3, effective from April 2024 and said she needed a property with one bedroom.

My assessment

14. In response to her initial contact, the Council decided it did not have reason to believe she was at risk of homelessness because the notice to leave was not valid. In those circumstances, the threshold for accepting a homelessness application was not met so the Council did not need to confirm its decision in writing and Ms X had no right of review.
15. The Council gave Ms X the standard advice for all tenants receiving a notice to leave, which was that she had the legal right to remain in the property until she had either found alternative accommodation, or the court required her to leave. This was not fault. The Council was not responsible for the person she was subletting from changing the locks so she could not access her belongings.
16. In April 2024, Ms X made a further homelessness application. The Council accepted a relief duty and advised her to look for PRS accommodation. It did not consider it had reason to believe she was in priority need so it did not arrange interim accommodation. We will not consider this part of the complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify this.
17. The relief duty usually lasts for 56 days, so it should have ended in early June 2024. The Council did not issue a decision ending the relief duty until September 2024. However, this did not cause Ms X a significant injustice since she had the chance to look for PRS, with Council support, for longer than she would otherwise have done. We will not consider this part of the complaint further because there is insufficient injustice to justify our involvement.
18. The Council accepted it had not responded to her requests for updates whilst waiting for a decision, for which it has apologised and that was appropriate to remedy the injustice caused. Further investigation of this aspect would not lead to a different outcome.
19. Ms X had the right to ask for a review of the Council’s decision that she is not in priority need and will have the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law if she disagrees with the review decision. It is reasonable for her to exercise those rights.
20. Ms X has not specifically complained about the Council’s housing register decision. It has awarded band 3, effective from the date of the homelessness application in early April 2024, which is in line with its published scheme. There is therefore insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating further.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in addressing her homelessness application because there is insufficient injustice to justify our involvement. It is reasonable for her to exercise her rights of review and appeal in relation to the Council’s decision she is not in priority need.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman