Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a lack of homelessness support. Ms X had appeal rights in relation to the Council’s decisions, and it was reasonable for her to exercise them. Further, there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to accept a homelessness duty and provide accommodation when she arrived back in the U.K. in December 2023 after a period abroad. She also complained that, after accepting a relief duty in 2025, it failed to assist her to find housing. Ms X says that, as a result of Council failings, she has been sofa surfing for many months, which has affected her physical and mental health.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X returned to the U.K after some years living abroad in December 2023. She had planned to stay with a friend until she had found employment and alternative housing, but the arrangement did not work out and she sought assistance from the Council. The Council decided she was not eligible for housing support. Ms X asked for a review of its decision, but the decision was upheld at review. In its review decision, the Council explained she could appeal to the county court.
6. In early 2025, Ms X again asked the Council for support. The Council accepted a relief duty. Ms X says she provided the documents it asked for in mid-March, but she heard nothing further until mid-May when the Council contacted her about viewings for private rented sector (PRS) properties.
7. In June 2025, the Council wrote to tell her it had ended the relief duty, which usually lasts for 56 days, because that period had expired. On the same day, it sent a letter saying it had decided she was not in priority need, which meant it had not further duty to support her with her housing situation.
8. Ms X asked for a review of both decisions and provided further evidence. She said the Council had wasted the relief duty period and that it had failed to provide a list of letting agents who accept tenants who are receiving benefits when she asked for this in June 2025.
9. The Council carried out a review of both decisions. In relation to its decision to end the relief duty, it set out some of the steps it had taken to assist her and concluded that it had complied with its legal obligations under the duty. It said it had no record of the request for a list of letting agents accepting DSS tenants, but that the information was provided in its “Minded to” letter sent to Ms X during the review process.
10. In relation to whether Ms X was in priority need, it set out the evidence it had considered and the legal tests it had applied. It upheld both decisions and set out its reasons. It also set out relevant appeal rights.

My assessment

11. Ms X initially complained to us in November 2024 about the June 2024 decision, so her complaint was made within 12 months. We did not agree to investigate at that point because she had not complained to the Council and given it chance to respond. Ms X made a further complaint to us in September 2025. I have not seen evidence the Council has considered the issues raised by either complaint through its corporate complaints process, but I note it has reviewed its decisions.
12. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the decisions the Council made were correct. We can consider the decision-making process but, unless there was fault with the Council’s decision-making, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
13. In all three cases, the decision letters show the Council considered relevant evidence and appropriate legal tests when making the decision. It set out the reasons for its decision in detail. There is therefore insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
14. Further, in all three review decisions, the Council explained Ms X had the right to appeal to the county court if she was unhappy with its decision. It was reasonable for her to exercise her appeal rights because we could not say whether she was eligible for housing support or was in priority need as these are legal matters the court would need to determine.
15. I note Ms X raised her concerns about the support provided during the relief duty period in her review request and the Council addressed these in its review decision. I also note it was not solely the Council’s responsibility to help her secure PRS accommodation and recognise the difficulty of identifying properties in London Boroughs where the rent is affordable for applicants who are relying on benefits. Even if we investigated this part of the complaint further, it is unlikely, based on the information seen, that we would be able to establish Ms X had missed out on an offer of accommodation due to Council fault. The uncertainty Ms X is left with is not a sufficient injustice to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she had appeal rights and it was reasonable for her to exercise them. Further there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman