Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s non-priority decision on a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Ms X to ask for a review of the decision and a further appeal to the County Court if this had been unsuccessful.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision not to accept her homelessness application under its main housing duty because she was considered to be non-priority homeless. She also complained about not being offered interim accommodation when the Council was considering her case.

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. Ms X says she was not offered accommodation when she presented as homeless in 2024. She says she has mental health problems but the Council ignored this and informed her that she had no right to interim accommodation because it did not consider her to be vulnerable.
6. The Council says it provided Ms X with a Personalised housing Plan under the homelessness Relief duty but that she was not eligible for interim accommodation because she was non-priority homeless and not a single vulnerable person. It issued her with a s.189 homelessness decision that she was non-priority homeless. The decision letter advised Ms X of her right to challenge the decision unders.202 of the Housing Act 1996 part 7 if she wished to challenge its decision.
7. It was reasonable for Ms X to seek a review of the Council’s decision and if unsuccessful, to use the appeals procedure under s.204 of the same legislation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s non-priority decision on a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Ms X to ask for a review of the decision and a further appeal to the County Court if this had been unsuccessful.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman