Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a homeless application. It was reasonable for the complainant to appeal against the decision that she was non-priority homeless. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing any significant injustice in the way the Council processed the application.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision that she was non-priority homeless when she submitted an application. She also says that the Council failed to provide her with temporary accommodation during the Relief duty stage and that it did not assist her to recover her belongings or store them for her following an eviction by her private landlord.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X says she approached the Council as being potentially homeless in 2024 when her private landlord issued her with a notice to quit and then took possession proceedings. She was accepted under the homelessness Relief duty by the Council in September 2024 and it issued a Personalised Housing Plan which set out what would happen. She says the plan was issued two weeks too late but the Council says this was due to her failure to provide all the documents it required for its assessment.
7. Ms X was offered interim accommodation in a hostel, but she declined this because she says it was unsuitable for her needs and she remained in her rented accommodation until evicted. There is no review of suitability for interim accommodation and she did not complain to us about this at the time.
8. The Relief duty ended in October but the council did not tell her this until 1 January. It offered to extend the availability of interim accommodation after the 56-day timescale but Ms X found her own accommodation when she was evicted. She says the landlord did not allow her access to her belongings for some time afterwards and the Council did not take action to recover them.
9. The Council says it can only give advice to landlords that they risk court action if they sell or interfere with belongings following an eviction which was not illegal. In this case the landlord did allow Ms X to collect her belongings without her needing to threaten legal action.
10. Ms X says the Council told her in January that it had decided she was non-priority homeless and that it was ending the homelessness case as she did not qualify for the Main housing duty. By this time she had secured alternative accommodation and did not have to be removed from any interim accommodation. She asked the Council to review the decision on non-priority under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996, Part 7. The Council carried out a review but did not change its decision.
11. Ms X tried to make a formal compalint about the decision but the Council told her that she could only challenge the s.202 review decision by way of appealing to the County Court, which was explained in the review decision. We cannot overturn a decision on a housing application when it has been reviewed under the legislation. It was reasonable for Ms X to challenge the Council’s decision by appealing.
12. Ms X later complained about the Council not providing her with temporary accommodation after the review decision and not offering to store her belongings. She says she had to employ a private storage company and cannot afford to do this any longer.
13. Once the decision to end the homelessness duty was issued in January the Council had no duty to provide accommodation and she had already found her own accommodation. This may not be long-term but she would have to make a new application from her current address. There is no duty to store belongings of someone found to be non-priority homeless and who is not in temporary or interim accommodation. Ms X’s complaint is about the cost of private storage which she arranged, but the Council would also make a similar charge had she been accepted under the Main housing duty. The storage duty is not a free service.
14. The Council has accepted there were some delays in issuing documents within the homeless duty timescales and offered Ms X £270. Given that the outcome would not have been different had these notifications been issued sooner, I do not consider there is sufficient injustice to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate @’s complaint because @

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman