Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in issuing a homelessness review decision. It was reasonable for Mr X to challenge the final decision by appealing to the court. There is insufficient injustice caused by the delay to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council ‘s delay in issuing its decision for the review which he requested following a homelessness decision. He says he should have been offered accommodation and the original decision that he was non-priority homeless should have been overturned.

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 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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

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. Mr X says the Council delayed processing his homelessness review request under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996. He submitted the review request in October 2024 and the Council accepted in April 2025 that the decision should have been made by December. It offered Mr X £300 compensation for delay. Mr X accepted the cheque but says he was unable to cash the cheque himself because he lacks a bank account. The Council has given Mr X advice on how to process the payment.
7. The Council told Mr X in June that it was minded to uphold the original decision that he was non- priority homeless subject to information required from him about his finances and consent to check his medical evidence. It says he has refused to co-operate with the request the Council is required to make under the legislation. In August the Council issued its review decision that he remains not homeless or threatened with homelessness and is a non-priority applicant.
8. The Council’s decision letter included advice about rights of appeal to the County Court within 21 days. We cannot overturn a homelessness decision if the correct process was followed and it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal.
9. Any additional delay following the June ‘minded to’ decision did not cause Mr X any significant injustice because the outcome was the same as the original 2024 decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in issuing a homelessness review decision. It was reasonable for Mr X to challenge the final decision by appealing to the court. There is insufficient injustice caused by the delay to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman