Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council has dealt with Ms X’s homelessness. Ms X had the right to appeal to the county court if she disagreed with the Council’s decision she was intentionally homeless and it was reasonable for her to exercise that right.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the way the Council has dealt with her homelessness and the Council’s decision that she is intentionally homeless. In addition she complains the Council failed to make appropriate referrals to support her children. She says this has caused her anxiety and distress and left them without stable housing or support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Ms X complained about events going back to 2017. As set out at paragraph 3, complainants are expected to come to us within 12 months of knowing they have cause for complaint. If Ms X had concerns about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness between 2017 and 2024 it was open to her to come to us at that time and there is no evidence she could not have done so. There are no good reasons to consider late events now. Ms X complained to us in May 2025. I have considered what happened since May 2024. I have referred to previous events as background.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

The relief duty

9. If a council is satisfied the applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it will owe a relief duty. This duty means a council must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
10. If a council has “reason to believe” a person may be homeless, eligible and in priority need, then it must provide interim accommodation for them. Examples of applicants in priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse

The main housing duty

11. Where a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and not intentionally homeless, it may owe them a main housing duty under the Housing Act 1996. This is a duty to secure accommodation for them. Until it is able to discharge this duty, it is required to provide temporary accommodation. This accommodation should be suitable for the applicant and those who live with them. If an applicant considers the temporary accommodation is unsuitable, they can ask the council to carry out a statutory review of its suitability, following which they can appeal on a point of law to the county court.

Intentionally homeless

12. The law says a person is intentionally homeless if they deliberately do or fail to do anything which means the stop occupying accommodation which is available to them and which it would otherwise be reasonable for them to continue to live in. (s.191 Housing Act 1996)
13. If a council decides an applicant is intentionally homeless, it must issue a decision in writing and tell the applicant about their right to ask for a review of this decision within 21 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 184)
14. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) and any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
15. Following a review, an applicant has a right to appeal to court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
16. The homelessness code of guidance says where a council finds an eligible applicant has a priority need but is homeless intentionally and the relief duty has come to an end, they have a duty to secure accommodation which is available to the applicant to provide reasonable opportunity for them to find their own accommodation. The authority must also provide advice and assistance in any attempts the applicant might make to secure accommodation.
17. It is for the council to decide whether an applicant is homeless intentionally. Where a person becomes homeless intentionally, that condition may continue until the link between the causal act or omission and the intentional homelessness has been broken. The causal link between a deliberate act or omission and intentional homelessness is typically broken by a period in settled accommodation which follows the intentional homelessness. Whether accommodation is settled will depend on the circumstances of the case, with factors such as security of tenure and length of residence being relevant. Occupation of accommodation that was merely temporary rather than settled, for example, staying with friends on an insecure basis, may not be sufficient to break the link with the earlier intentional homelessness. (9.15 homelessness code of guidance)

Children’s Services

18. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)

Background

19. The Council owed Ms X and her children the main housing duty and provided her with temporary accommodation. In 2018 the Council established Ms X had been out of the country for seven months and someone else was staying at the property. It served a notice to quit and evicted Ms X in May 2019.
20. In October 2019 the Council wrote to Ms X ending its housing duty and explaining her appeal rights.
21. In March 2020 Ms X approached the Council again and it provided her with interim accommodation. In July 2021 it wrote to advise her that it found her intentionally homeless. Ms X requested a review of that decision. The Council wrote to Ms X in January 2022 upholding the decision she was intentionally homeless and said the interim accommodation would end in late February 2022.
22. During late 2023 and October 2024 Ms X was staying with relatives abroad.

What happened

23. In October 2024 Ms X returned to the UK and stayed with her children at different addresses. In late October 2024 she applied to the Council as homeless. It provided interim accommodation.
24. The Council wrote to Ms X that it did not consider it owed her a duty as there was no change in the relevant facts since the previous application and its decision of July 2021. It said Ms X had not had settled accommodation since then and here was no change in the family composition. It notified Children’s Services.
25. Ms X approached the Council again in mid December 2024 and it provided her and her children with interim accommodation. It accepted the relief duty later that month. The Council referred Ms X to its lettings team for assistance with finding private rented accommodation. The records show it contacted her and offered her properties to view. Ms X had concerns some of the properties were not near her support network.
26. In late February 2025 the Council wrote to Ms X ending the relief duty as 56 days had passed. It wrote to Ms X in mid March 2025 that it remained of the view she was intentionally homeless. It set out the information it had considered. The emergency accommodation it had provided was in another council’s area. It referred Ms X to Children’s Services in that council’s area.
27. Ms X requested a review of the Council’s decision in mid March 2025. In early April 2025 Ms X complained to the Council about the way it had dealt with her homelessness.
28. The Council wrote to Ms X in late April 2025 with the review outcome. The Council remained of the view she was intentionally homeless. It said it would try and support Ms X to find private rented accommodation and said she could remain at the interim accommodation at that time. It explained her right to appeal to court on a point of law.
29. At the end of April it also wrote to Ms X with its stage one complaint response. It summarised the events set out above and said it did not uphold the complaint. It explained that dissatisfaction with homelessness decisions were dealt with under the review procedure and could be appealed to court. It continued to offer assistance with finding private rented accommodation.
30. Ms X asked for a stage two response to her complaint. The Council wrote to Ms X in July 2025. It again summarised the events. It explained the officer who had considered her case had looked at all relevant information in reaching the decisions she was intentionally homeless, including her address history and any mitigating circumstances. It said the timescale for an appeal had passed so if Ms X wished to appeal she would need to approach the county court. It said the lettings team had contacted her in May and June 2025 but had not received a reply.
31. It explained that under the Children Act 2004, responsibility for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children lay with the council responsible for the area where the child lived. It said it had referred Ms X to Children’s Services in the area she was living in. It said Ms X would need to approach that council for Children’s Services support. It would be for that council to conduct any assessments or offer support.

Findings

32. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made. The Council gathered relevant information and clearly set out how it reached its decision Ms X was intentionally homeless, and it did not owe her the homelessness duty. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached this decision.
33. The Council acted appropriately in line with the law and Code of Guidance in accepting the relief duty, providing interim accommodation and in referring Ms X for support from its private lettings team.
34. We would not normally consider a complaint where there is a right of appeal and it is reasonable for someone to use it. We do not have powers to overturn homelessness decisions or make findings on points of law. There is a statutory process, set out in law, for reviewing homelessness decisions. Once a council has completed a review it is open to an applicant to appeal a decision at court on a point of law. Ms X had a right of review of the Council’s decision she was intentionally homeless and she used that right. It was then open to her to appeal to court if she disagreed with the Council’s decision and it was reasonable for her to exercise her court appeal rights.
35. Ms X was unhappy the Council complaint responses reiterated that the appropriate channel for appeal was through the court. The Council was not at fault. That was the correct way for Ms X to overturn the Council’s decision she was intentionally homeless if she believed it was wrong.
36. Ms X’s interim accommodation is in another council’s area. The Council correctly explained that under the Children’s Act the responsibility for any support for her children lies with the authority in the area in which she lived. It was not at fault for referring Ms X to the neighbouring council.

Back to top

Decision

37. The Council is not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman