Summary: We will not investigate Mx X’s complaint about the Council’s decision they were Not Homeless and therefore not eligible for support. Mx X had rights of review and appeal if he disagreed with the Not Homeless decision. Despite their health issues, it was reasonable for them to use those rights.

The complaint

1. Mx X complained the Council had not assisted them to move to suitable alternative accommodation after they suffered harassment from neighbours.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mx X made a homelessness application in July 2025. The Council carried out an Assessment. Mx X said they were being harassed by neighbours in the area where they lived and wanted to move to London. The Council advised them it could only made a referral to a specific London Borough if it considered they were homeless or at risk of homelessness and Mx X had a local connection to the Borough referred to. The Council also recorded that Mx X had been awarded Band 1 on its housing register.
6. In August, the Council wrote to Mx X to explain they would be making a Not Homeless decision, which meant it could not make a referral to a London Borough. However, it provided a link for Mx X to make a fresh homelessness application directly to the Borough Mx X wanted to move to.
7. A few days later, the Council sent a Not Homeless decision. The decision letter explained that Mx X could ask for a review of that decision if they disagreed with it. Mx X did not ask for a review. If they had done so, and disagreed with the outcome, they could have appealed to the county court.
8. Despite Mx X having health issues, it was reasonable for them to have used their rights of review and appeal. Therefore, we will not investigate further.
9. As a result of the Not Homeless decision, the Council did not make referrals to a homeless hostel, nor to the London Borough requested, but it was not under any duty to do so after deciding Mx X was not homeless.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mx X’s complaint because they had rights of review and appeal and it was reasonable for them to have used those rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman