Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s homelessness application. It was reasonable to expect Miss X to go to court.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council failed to consider her homelessness application in line with the law and its own procedures.
2. Ms X says the Council delayed in making decisions and treated her family unfairly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. If a council decides an applicant is intentionally homeless, it has no duty to obtain housing for the applicant. The applicant can ask the council to review the decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the review upholds the decision, the applicant can appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
8. The Council decided Ms X was intentionally homeless. Ms X says her application was not assessed fairly and she experienced numerous delays.
9. The law provides for an internal Council review, and also court, remedies as the mechanisms to challenge such decisions, so we normally expect applicants to use these.
10. The Council says Ms X’s review was decided in August 2025. The Council’s review upheld the decision that Ms X is intentionally homeless, Miss X had a court appeal right mentioned above.
11. Ms X argues the Council has not met the law in considering her application. This relates to the application of the legislation and case law about intentional homelessness, so they are points of law.
12. We expect applicants to use the court appeal right that the law provides if it arises. I have seen no information to indicate it was not reasonable to expect Ms X to pursue her claim in court. She could have sought advice from a solicitor, law centre or a homelessness advice charity, like Shelter. The court can make a binding decision and overturn the Council's decision, unlike the Ombudsman.
13. For these reasons, I consider it was reasonable to expect Ms X to go to court.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it was reasonable to expect her to use her court remedy the law provides for her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman