Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Ms X is not homeless. Ms X has rights of review and appeal and it is reasonable for her to exercise these.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council did not follow a proper process and did not offer assistance when she became homeless due to domestic abuse. She says this means she and her child have had to remain in an abusive situation.

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, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. Ms X first contacted the Council for support in January 2025. She formally made a homelessness application in April, and the Council decided she was not legally homeless the same month. In its decision it explained that the various issues she had raised did not amount to domestic abuse. It also considered her mental health and a medical condition. It explained she could ask for a review of its decision within 21 days. I have seen nothing to show Ms X asked for a review.
8. In June, Ms X says she was attacked by someone she considers is connected to her former partner. A safeguarding referral was made but the Council’s children’s social care team decided no further action was needed. It explained its reasons in a telephone call with Ms X and confirmed in writing that it was not acting further.
9. Also in June, her former partner asked her to sign an agreement to out their joint tenancy into his sole name. The Council advised her not to sign the agreement as it could mean she would be found intentionally homeless if she made a further homelessness application.

My assessment

10. Ms X provided the Council’s decision she was not legally homeless. This shows it considered all relevant factors, including the information she provided, before making its decision. Unless there is fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. In this case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify us investigating further.
11. In any case, she had the right to ask the Council to review its decision if she was unhappy with it. If she was unhappy with the review outcome, she would have had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. It was reasonable for us to exercise those rights because only the court can quash the decision.
12. The Council considered the safeguarding referral and explained to Ms X why it was not taking further action. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it considering this to justify further investigation.
13. When Ms X provided information of the agreement her former partner had asked her to sign, the Council gave appropriate advice about the risk she would be found to be intentionally homeless if she agreed to her name being removed from the joint tenancy. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement and because it was reasonable for her to use her rights of review and appeal if she disagreed with its decision that she was not homeless.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman