Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council handled her homelessness and housing applications. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council did not properly consider her homelessness application and application to the Housing Register. Ms X stated that this has had a negative impact upon her mental health. Ms X would like her application to be reconsidered with the evidence she has provided.

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

5. In autumn 2024 Ms X approached Council B about being potentially homeless after she was asked to leave the property where she had been staying.
6. In spring 2025 Council B concluded that Ms X did not have a local connection to its area and referred her to the Council where they believed she did have a local connection.
7. The Council accepted the homelessness referral from Council B. Ms X stated that she withdrew her homelessness application with the Council in spring 2025 after she was offered accommodation in a hostel which she felt pressured to accept.
8. The Council wrote to Ms X in Spring 2025 and stated they could continue with her homelessness application but confirmed that Ms X had chosen to withdraw her application.
9. The Council rejected Ms X’s housing application in spring 2025. It told her she had not met the eligibility requirement because she had not lived within the area for two consecutive years at the date of her application.
10. Ms X requested a review of the housing application decision under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 and provided evidence of residency up to 2024. The Council carried out a review in Spring 2025 and upheld its decision that she was not eligible due to not living in the area for two consecutive years at the date of application.
11. 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.
12. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.
13. In this case the Council conducted a review. Its review decision shows it considered all the information it had, including the grounds for the review request, and that it considered its published scheme, including the exceptions to the residency requirements set out in that scheme.
14. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman