Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s handleding of Miss X’s homelessness application. It was reasonable to expect Miss X to challenge the Council’s decision by an appeal to the court.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council did not consider her homelessness application properly. She said she had been traumatised by the experience and has lost personal connections. She wanted the Council to apologise and to provide compensation for the harm caused.

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.

I’d only use this in cases where something is OJ without discretion

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

Add in the no inj bullet point if what I’ve said in what is now para 12 is right

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

5. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended

due to what I’ve added to para 11

, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X applied to the Council as homeless in 2025. The Council made two offers of temporary accommodation to Miss X which she refused as unsuitable for her. In June 2025 the Council issued a decision that it considered her to be neither homeless or threatened with homelessness because she jointly owned a property and it was reasonable for her to live there.
9. The Council’s decision on Miss X’s homelessness

When there are a few different elements to a complaint, and also when the complainant is neurodivergent, headings can be useful to break it up a little

10. Miss X asked for a review of the Council’s decision under Sections. 202 of the Housing Act 1996, Part 7. The Council carried out the review but it upheld its original decision that she Miss X was neither homeless nor threatened with homelessness. The Council gave her information on how to challenge its decision by appealing to the court.
11. We are not an appeal body. We cannot overturn a decision made by a council on a homelessness application. The legislation provides a means to challenge these decisions by way of the review/appeal procedure, which the Council made Miss X aware of. The courts are best placed to consider challenges to homelessness decisions and legal aid is available. I can find no evidence to suggest the Council did not follow the correct procedure when it made its decision on Miss X’s case and the review was properly carried out. 

I wouldn’t go as far as commenting in any detail on how the review was administered because ultimately, the alleged result of any of these things is the decision the cl came to. So these things, in my view, are too intertwined with the issues that would have been for court and if she had concerns these things caused a wrong decision, she could have raised them via appeal

I have considered information Miss X provided about her communication needs, but she was able to complain to the Council and to us, and could have communicated her reasons for appealing to a solicitor. There is not a good reason for us to consider the Council’s decision-making instead of the courts, and it was reasonable for Miss X to use her right of appeal.

12. Other parts of Miss X’s complaint
13. Miss X also complained the Council had delayed in providing assistance, made false claims about home visits, and shared her information with external professionals. In its complaint response, the Council listed the occasions that it visited Miss X’s home and noted it was satisfied the Council had been proactive in trying to meet Miss X in person. It also said the Council responded appropriately to referrals from external professionals.
14. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. It would not result in a change to the Council’s decision on Miss X’s homelessness, and it would have been reasonable for
    Miss X to raise her concerns as part of an appeal insofar as she

Can you think of any more plan english way to say this?

believed they affected the Council’s decision. The Council hasve investigated Miss X’s complaint and explained when home visits and communication attempts were made. It also provided clarification about how and when it worked with external professionals when trying to support Miss X.

15. Miss X complained the Council offered her unsuitable interim accommodation

Added this in as I don’t think it’s otherwise covered. Please confirm I am right in this respect - was it interim accommodation (i.e. emergency accommodation when she first presented as homeless, before any investigations had taken place?) If so, it’s something we could consider but from what I can gather, she didn’t accept it anyway? So hence no inj.

. She did not accept this accommodation, so this did not cause Miss X an injustice and we will not consider the matter further.

16. Miss X complained the Council did not acknowledge or accommodate her communication needs. In its complaint response, the Council apologised to
    Miss X

soft shift

for one contact attempt made in May 2025 which was not in line with her communication needs. It stated that communication needs had also been discussed with the Housing Options Team.

17. We will not investigate this part of Miss X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The Council apologised for trying to communicate with her in a way that did not meet her communication needs.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it was reasonable for her to challenge the Council’s decision by way of an appeal to the court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman