Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council provided unsuitable accommodation when she became homeless. She also said it sent a letter to an incorrect email address so she was not aware she could ask for a review until after the time period for asking had expired. Ms X said the unsuitable accommodation had a significant impact on her mental health, which meant she had to leave and was sofa surfing for months.

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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X contacted the Council in May 2024, after receiving a notice from her landlord to leave her private rented sector (PRS property). The Council carried out an assessment in June. It accepted a prevention duty because it agreed she was at risk of homelessness and made a referral to Charity A, which provides supported housing.
6. On 10 July, Ms X reported her phone had not been working. She asked the Council to use a different email address when communicating with her. On the same day she was sent an offer letter as Charity A had offered a place in its hostel. On 22 July, the Council ended its prevention duty because Ms X had accepted the offer of shared accommodation and moved in. Ms X had the right to ask the Council for a review of that decision within 21 days.
7. In two telephone conversations in late August/early September, Ms X advised she was unhappy with the shared accommodation and her doctor had said she needed self-contained accommodation. Council records show it advised Ms X to work with Charity A to address her concerns, that it explained that if she left the tenancy, it would not have a duty to rehouse her as she was not in priority need, and that giving up the tenancy might mean she had made herself intentionally homeless. Ms X left the accommodation.
8. In March 2025, Ms X contacted the Council again. It made a further referral to Charity A and Ms X moved back into the same accommodation.

My assessment

9. Ms X complained the Council:
• had not properly investigated whether her eviction from her PRS property was a retaliatory eviction. The Council explained an eviction was only retaliatory of it was in response to the Council issuing certain notices on the landlord and that was not the case here. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered this to justify further investigation;
• had not properly assessed whether she was in priority need. The Council explained she had not provided medical evidence to show she was vulnerable due to medical needs, did not have a child living with her and was not street homeless. Therefore, it did not consider she was in priority need. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered this to justify further investigation;
• had sent the letter explaining her review rights to an incorrect email address. The Council confirmed it had updated Ms X’s contact details on 10 July and all further communications were sent to the new email address. It told us it had also shared the information through its portal, which indicated Ms X had accessed its communications. There is no indication that Ms X raised concerns about the accommodation until late August, which was well outside the timeframe for asking for a review, nor is there any evidence to suggest the Council would have decided it was unsuitable if a review had been requested. Further, Ms X has since returned to the same accommodation. Therefore, even if Ms X was not aware of her review rights, this did not cause her a sufficient injustice to justify further investigation; and
• did not assist her when she left the accommodation. Council records show it explained to her the possible consequences of leaving the accommodation, including that it would not be under a duty to rehouse her because she was not in priority need. When Ms X contacted it again in March 2025, it made a further referral to Charity A. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
10. For the reasons set out above, we will not consider this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman