Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint against the Council decision to end their relief duty and close her homelessness referral. This is because it is unlikely that an investigation would achieve the outcome she wants. Ms X had statutory review and appeal rights, and it was reasonable for her to use the procedure to challenge this decision.

The complaint

1. Summary: Ms X complained that the Council abandoned her homelessness referral without contacting her. She says they falsely claimed in their Stage 2 findings that three calls were made and ignored her request reasonable adjustments for communication by email due to her disabilities. She says the council failed to acknowledge procedural errors and their complaint responses contain contradictions. As a result Ms X has been left in an unsafe and abusive environment with no secure housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; or
• 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)).

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).

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 says the Council falsely claimed in their Stage 2 findings that three calls were made and ignored her request reasonable adjustments for communication by email due to her disabilities.
7. Ms Y self-referred as homeless to the Council again in June 2025. The evidence submitted shows that the Council made several attempts to contact her and left voicemails, they then closed her application due to non-contact. During the complaints process, several more attempts were conducted to reach her. The Stage 2 response states that emails requesting further information were sent and not responded to. There is no evidence that Ms X attempted to contact the Council to reschedule her assessment or respond to their attempts to contact her. There is an expectation that Ms X engage with the Council and follow steps in her Personal Housing Plan including regular contact.
8. Ms X would like the Council to issue a formal apology and award financial compensation. The restriction in paragraph two therefore applies.
9. Ms X complained that the Council abandoned her homelessness abandoned her homelessness referral without contacting her.
10. The evidence submitted shows that in March 2025 the Council issued her with Section 184(3) Decision Result Letter which stated their Relief Duty had ended and they no longer owed her this duty. They explained she did not have a priority need under S189 of the Housing Act and advised her that she could request a section 202 review of this decision within 21 days. Ms X had a statutory right to request a review of this decision and subsequently, appeal to the County Court about the Council’s decision to close her application if the review was not upheld. The restriction in paragraph three therefore applies. She could have used this right of appeal and so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint against the Council decision to end their relief duty and close her homelessness referral. This is because it is unlikely that an investigation would achieve the outcome she wants. Ms X had statutory review rights, and it was reasonable for her to use the appeals procedure to challenge this decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman