Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Miss X to provide the documents the Council required and to ask for a review when the Council issued a non-priority homeless decision.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to determine her homelessness application. She says that she has had to live with her mother and sleep in her car on occasions. She wanted the Council to accept her application and provide accommodation as an outcome to her complaint.

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 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 the Council failed to determine a homelessness application which she submitted in February 2025. The Council asked Miss X to provide various documents including health-related evidence so that it could determine whether or not she was a vulnerable person under the terms of the legislation. It says that Miss X failed to provide this evidence for it to complete its enquiries. I cannot say that the delay in processing the application was due to fault because the Council told Miss X and her member of parliament that it required the necessary information for it to decide her case.
7. She complained to us in July 2025 but later the same week the Council accepted a Relief duty under the Housing Act 1996 Part 6. The Council did not provide her with interim accommodation because it considered she was a single non-vulnerable person. Two weeks later the Council issued a non-priority homeless decision under s.184 of the homelessness legislation.
8. Miss X did not make us aware of this decision and she made a formal compalint to the Council and subsequently re-submitted her complaint to us. The decision letter was comprehensive and gave advice of what she should do to find alternative accommodation and also how she could seek a review of the decision within 21 days under s.202 of the 1996 Act.
9. Miss X did not seek a review which also carried a further right of appeal to the County Court if she wished to challenge the review outcome. We cannot overturn a decision made by a council on a homelessness application. we would usually expect someone to use the review and appeal procedure to challenge that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Miss X to provide the documents the Council required and to ask for a review when the Council issued a non-priority homeless decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman