Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Ms X was intentionally homeless in 2024. It was reasonable for her to ask for a review of the decision if she wished to challenge it. We will not investigate her complaint that the Council has delayed processing her housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council closing her homelessness application following a decision that she was intentionally homeless from her previous accommodation. She also say that she has not been given bidding advice on her housing application .

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal

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

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X says the Council decided that she was intentionally homeless in 2024 following her eviction from the accommodation where she was previously living. It said that the accommodation had been reasonable for her to occupy and she lost it due to her own actions after confrontation with the staff.
7. The Council issued a s.184 decision under the Housing Act 1996 Part 7 in June 2024 and the decision letter gave Ms X advice about her right to seek a review of the decision under s.202 of the legislation within 21 days. The Council has confirmed that Ms X did not submit a review request. A s.202 review carries further rights of appeal to the County Court if the applicant wishes to challenge a negative decision.
8. It was reasonable for Ms X to ask for a review of the Council’s decision and we will not consider this complaint further.
9. Ms X also complained about the Council’s failure to provide her with bidding details for her housing application. She complained about this in October 2024 but the Council confirmed that she had not submitted an application at this time and it was only able to consider one which it received in February 2025. This was under consideration when the Council provided us with its latest response.
10. 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.
11. I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of the housing issues which are the subject of Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Ms X was intentionally homeless in 2024. It was reasonable for her to ask for a review of the decision if she wished to challenge it. We will not investigate her complaint that the Council has delayed processing her housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman