Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council did not properly consider whether private rented accommodation was affordable for her before making a final offer to end its homelessness duty and did not give her sufficient time to appeal its decision. She said Council failings added to her health difficulties.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X sought homelessness assistance in January 2025. The Council accepted a relief duty and issued a personalised housing plan (PHP). She said she needed to live close to hospitals in the Council’s area and the Council gave her advice about finding private rented sector (PRS) accommodation.
6. In early February 2025, the Council made a final offer of PRS and explained she could ask for a review of its suitability. Its offer letter said the rent was £900 per month, which was the relevant Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rate, which meant the rent would be covered by the housing element of Universal Credit and the Council therefore said it was affordable for her.
7. Ms X refused the property, and the Council ended the relief duty on the basis she had unreasonably refused a suitable offer of housing. It explained Ms X could ask for a review of its decision within 21 days, which is the statutory timeframe for such review requests.
8. Ms X asked for a review but her request was not made within 21 days. She said she was not able to request a review within 21 days due to a medical condition, which meant she needed extra time to process information. She also said she was entitled to a one bedroom property but the offer was for a studio flat, and and that the property was dark, which meant it did not meet her health needs. The Council asked her to provide evidence of her medical condition, but she did not do so. It therefore, decided not to accept a late review request. In its letter informing Ms X of its refusal, it went on to explain why it considered the property offered was suitable for her.

My assessment

9. The Council considered relevant factors when deciding the PRS property it offered to Ms X was suitable, including its location (and proximity to hospitals), its size and whether it was affordable. Ms X told us she later discovered the rent was more than £900 per month but I have seen no evidence to support that, nor did she provide evidence to the Council when she made her review request.
10. The Council allowed 21 days for her to request a review, which is the statutory timeframe. In any case, it considered accepting a late review request, but Ms X did not provide any evidence of a medical condition that justified either a late request or a refusal of the property offered.
11. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman