Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s delays in dealing with her homeless application. We have ended our investigation into Ms X’s complaint because it is late, and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s delays in dealing with her homeless application. She says it failed to accept the relief duty when she first approached it in 2019, and then it took over four years to offer her the main housing duty.
2. Ms X says the Council’s actions have caused distress and upset to her and her children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Ms X made a homeless application to the Council in November 2019. The Council wrote to her in December and said it was satisfied she was not homeless.
8. Ms X approached a legal advice centre for assistance. An officer from the centre wrote to the Council in early January 2020 and asked it to review its decision on Ms X’s homeless application. The Council said it would not compete the review because it was out of time.
9. Ms X approached the Council for help again in March. The Council decided it had a duty to help Ms X secure suitable accommodation. This is called the relief duty. It sent Ms X a letter with its decision and provided her with interim accommodation.
10. Ms X called the Council in November. She asked what was happening with her homeless application and whether it had processed it.
11. The Council awarded Ms X the main housing duty in April 2024. Councils award the main housing duty when they are satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible and in priority need. It must make accommodation available for the applicant under this duty.
12. Ms X complained to the Council in January 2025 about its delays in dealing with her homeless application. The Council responded to the complaint and apologised for the delays.
13. Ms X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred her complaint to us in April.

Back to top

Analysis

14. Ms X first approached the Council in late 2019. The Council accepted the relief duty for her in March 2020. As she referred her complaint to us in April 2025, the restriction in paragraph four of this statement applies. Ms X was aware of the Council’s inaction on her homeless application, and this is evidenced by her calling the Council in November 2020 chasing an update. I appreciate the Council took four years to issue the main housing duty decision. However, it would have been reasonable for Ms X to have complained much sooner if she was unhappy with how long the Council was taking in dealing with her application.
15. Ms X says she moved to the country in 2019, and she did not know who to contact. However, Ms X approached a legal advice centre for help in early January 2020. She also attended the Council’s office in March 2020 with a friend who provided her with support. I am therefore satisfied Ms X knew how to ask for help, and she could have done so much sooner if she was unhappy with the Council’s delays. I have seen no good reasons for Ms X’s delay in bringing her complaint to us and so I will not exercise discretion to investigate it.

Back to top

Decision

16. I have ended my investigation. Ms X's complaint is late, and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman