Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint about the suitability of accommodation offered to end a homelessness duty. Ms Y had rights of review and appeal, and it was reasonable for her to exercise those rights.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained, on behalf of Ms Y, that the Council had failed to properly assess Ms Y’s medical needs before arranging shared accommodation. Ms X said Ms Y felt pressured to accept the tenancy and the Council had refused to reopen the case after Ms Y provided evidence the accommodation was causing Ms Y significant distress.

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.
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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. Ms Y approached the Council for homelessness support in late 2024. At the time, she was receiving support, including accommodation, from Charity A. The Council carried out a homelessness assessment. It identified Ms Y was waiting for an autism assessment. It accepted a relief duty and issued a personalised housing plan. It also made a referral to a team that assists young people into supported accommodation.
8. In December 2024, Ms Y moved to shared accommodation outside the Council’s area. The tenancy was offered to her by Charity A, and the Council was not involved in either identifying the placement or her signing the tenancy. Ms Y told the Council she had viewed the property, signed the tenancy and was happy with the support she was receiving from Charity A.
9. The Council ended its involvement in January 2025 but did not send its decision letter ending the relief duty until July 2025. This was after Ms X had complained the shared accommodation was unsuitable in June 2025. In its complaint response, the Council:
• explained the steps it had taken and that it had not been involved in arranging the tenancy;
• confirmed that, as the tenancy was for more than 6 months, it was considered settled and not temporary accommodation;
• explained Ms Y could ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation and the decision to end the relief duty within 21 days of its decision letter;
• apologised for its delay in sending an end of duty decision letter;
• confirmed Ms Y’s B1 priority on its housing register had been removed because Ms Y had been rehoused;
• explained Ms Y could make a fresh homelessness application; and
• signposted Ms X to various sources of support for Ms Y.
10. Ms X has since made a fresh homelessness application.

My assessment

11. The records indicate the Council considered the information it had about Ms Y’s medical needs at the time it carried out its assessment. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating further.
12. Further, the Council was not involved in identifying the shared accommodation, nor arranging the signing of the tenancy. It was entitled to rely on Ms Y’s assertion that she had viewed the accommodation and was happy with the support being provided to her.
13. It apologised for its delay in sending a decision letter to end the relief duty on the grounds Ms Y was suitably housed, which delayed Ms Y getting information about her review rights. The Council’s apology is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
14. It was reasonable for Ms Y, with Ms X’s help, to use her rights of review and appeal if she considered the shared accommodation was unsuitable. Only the court could determine if the accommodation was legally suitable and quash the Council’s decision to end its duty.
15. It was not fault for the Council to remove Ms Y’s priority banding on the grounds she had been suitably rehoused.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she had rights of review and appeal in relation to the suitability of the accommodation offered to end the homelessness duty and it was reasonable for her to use those rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman