Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Miss X to use the review/appeals procedure available under the homelessness legislation to challenge the Council’s decision that she was non-priority homeless.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council failed to provide her with suitable settled accommodation following her homelessness application when her private landlord issued her with a notice to quit.

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 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))

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)

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. Miss X says she approached the Council to be re-housed following her landlord issuing her with a s.21 notice to quit in early 2025. The Council accepted her application under the homelessness prevention duty and contacted her landlord to try to preserve her tenancy. When this was not successful she was accepted by the Council under the Relief duty. This involves a council assisting an applicant in finding suitable alternative accommodation. The Council did not offer her interim accommodation because she was still occupying her tenancy. Miss X did not find suitable accommodation before she complained to us.
7. Miss X complained to us in June but shortly afterwards the Council sent her a decision that it considered her to be non-priority homeless and did not have a duty to provide her with accommodation. The decision letter gave her details of her right to ask for a review under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 and this gives further rights of appeal to the courts.
8. We cannot overturn a council’s decision on a homelessness application and it was reasonable for the Council to challenge the decision by way of the review/appeal procedure. Miss X was still under the Relief duty provisions until the 56 days period expired when she complained to us.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Miss X to use the review/appeals procedure available under the homelessness legislation to challenge the Council’s decision that she was non-priority homeless.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman