Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Miss X to use the review/appeal procedure available under the homelessness legislation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to offer her interim emergency accommodation when it accepted her homelessness application under the Relief duty. She says that she is now homeless without accommodation.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X applied to the Council as homeless in 2024 after her landlord served her with an eviction warrant. The Council accepted her under the Relief duty but informed her that she was considered to be non-priority homeless as a single person with no priority need and no exceptional circumstances applied. The decision letter informed her that the Council had no duty to provide interim accommodation and that only advice and assistance would be offered.
6. Miss X was informed about her right to seek a review of the decision under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 in 2024 but did not pursue this.
7. The Council referred Miss X to a charity organisation for single homeless applicants and gave her details about other organisations for single applicants. In February 2025 the Council ended the Relief duty because the 56 days Relief period had expired. Even though she remained homeless it told Miss X that the Council no longer owed her a homelessness duty.
8. Miss X could also have challenged this decision under the review/appeal procedure but she did not do so.
9. 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.
10. There is no evidence that the council failed to use the correct procedure when considering Miss X’s case and it was reasonable for her to ask for reviews at the time.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Miss X to use the review/appeal procedure available under the homelessness legislation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman