Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application. It was reasonable for the complainant to use the review/appeal procedure to challenge the Council’s decisions on her application.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s actions in dealing with her homelessness application since 2024. She says her personalised housing plan was flawed, the decision that she was intentionally homeless was wrong and the Council failed to consider her medical issues, the Equality Act and the suitability of her temporary accommodation provided in 2025.

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, or
• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says that the Council failed to take into account her medical issues when it accepted her under the homelessness relief duty in 2024. She says the personalised housing plan she was given did not meet her needs or give a reasonable path to her securing alternative accommodation. The Council accepts that there were some typing errors and omissions in the plan but it met the requirements in terms of setting out what the Council and the applicant should do to seek alternative housing.
6. The provisions of the housing Act 1996 Part 7 give a homeless applicant rights to ask for a review of decisions on the personalised housing plan under s.202. Ms X has made other review requests under this legislation and it was reasonable for her to use the review/appeal procedure for this complaint also.
7. The Council decided in November 2024 that Ms X was intentionally homeless and issue a decision which ended its duty to provide interim accommodation. Ms X asked for a review of the decision under s.202 and in March 2025 the Council upheld the review and accepted her under the main housing duty. This was the correct procedure to challenge a homelessness decision. If Ms X had complained to us at the time we would have advised her to seek a review and appeal to the County Court had it been unsuccessful.
8. We will not investigate Ms X’s allegations that her case was not fairly decided on health and Equality Act grounds because she had a right of review of the decision on her case and this was pursued successfully.
9. The Council provided her with temporary accommodation which is a requirement of the main housing duty. However, Ms X says the accommodation is not suitable due to it being outside the borough area. The legislation provides a right of review of suitability and Ms X could challenge this under s.202 as she did with the intentionality 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 the complainant to use the review/appeal procedure to challenge the Council’s decisions on her application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman