Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in processing and handling of her homelessness application because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision making to justify our involvement. The delay in responding to her complaint was remedied and there is no right of review when a person has found and accepted private rented accommodation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about a delayed complaint response from the Council. She also says that the Council failed to process her homelessness application for a year resulting in her having to file another application. She says she was offered unsuitable accommodation out of the borough and then found accommdoation which is also unsuitable following the discharge of th ehomelessness duty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a Council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

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. Ms X submitted a homelessness application to the Council in April 2025 and had a homelessness interview in June. She was accepted as homeless under the Relief duty under the Housing Act 1996. On that same day, Ms X complained about the handling of her homelessness application as she felt that the housing team were inappropriate and there had been delays in processing her application. She submitted a further complaint about the conduct and handling of her case as well as inaccurate information recorded on her personalised housing plan (PHP).
7. On 17 June 2025, the Council responded to the complaint apologising for the handling of the case and clearly informing Ms X of the next steps in her homelessness application. Ms X responded with a request for a stage 2 review.
8. The Council told her entitlement is a 2-bedroom property on the housing register and that there is no evidence of Ms X needing priority for accommodation in the borough or neighbouring boroughs. She was subsequently offered a 12-month tenancy in another part of the country which she refused because it was too far away.
9. Ms X subsequently found private rented accommodation in a one-bedroom flat in the Council’s area to rent. She complained that the Council should have her listed for 2-bedroom accommodation but it told her that under the relief duty smaller accommodation was suitable even if she was still eligible to apply for 2-bedroom housing on the housing register.
10. On 21 July 2025, the Council send Ms X a letter informing her that the relief duty owed to her is ending following her acceptance of privately rented accommodation. The letter set out Ms X’s right to review this decision at the end of the letter. Since moving into the accommodation, Ms X complains that the accommodation is unsafe due to the anti-social behaviour of her neighbours. The Council cannot conduct a review of suitability private rented accommodation as this is not temporary accommodation.
11. On 15 September 2025, the Council provided Ms X with a stage 2 review response which was upheld in part. The Council acknowledged some of Ms X’s issues were not properly addressed considering explanation of her housing needs entitlement. The complaint did not uphold the complaints surrounding the private rented accommodation or the lack of consideration to Ms X’s support needs.
12. This was not evidenced in Ms X’s homelessness application or via a review of her PHP. As the Council has now provided a stage 2 response and within that response has dealt with the confusion surrounding Ms X’s housing entitlement, we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
13. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the Council delayed in processing Ms X’s first homelessness application in 2024 and it was reasonable for her to complain to us at the time or ask the Council for a determination of her application.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision making to justify our involvement. The delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint has now been resolved and there is no right of review when a person has found and accepted private rented accommodation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman