Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end the homelessness prevention duty. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating and because Ms X has appeal rights that are reasonable for her to exercise.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness prevention duty, which she says means she remains in housing that is unsuitable because she is at risk of domestic abuse.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Ms X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. Ms X told the Council she was homeless due to domestic abuse from a relative she was living with. The Council accepted a prevention duty but ended it on the grounds it was satisfied she was not homeless. It said it had no reason to believe she could not continue living at her current address and did not consider she was at risk of abuse at that address. It set out her right to ask for a review.
8. Ms X asked for a review of that decision. As part of a previous investigation the Council agreed to carry out a review. It has now done so and issued the review decision on 9 April 2025. It decided the decision to end the prevention duty was correct. It explained its reasons, including addressing the concerns Ms X raised about its initial decision and explaining why the information she provided about the relative’s conduct did not amount to domestic abuse that meant she was homeless or at risk of homelessness. It set out her right to appeal to the county court if she considered the review decision was wrong in law.

My assessment

9. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision is correct. Unless there was fault in its decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The Council has carried out a review. It set out its reasons for deciding it was appropriate to end the prevention duty and addressed the concerns Ms X had raised. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify further investigation by us.
10. In any case, Ms X has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law and it is reasonable for her to exercise that right if she thinks the Council’s decision is legally wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and Ms X has the right to appeal to the county court and it is reasonable for her to do so if she thinks the Council’s decision is wrong in law.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman