Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to properly assess her homelessness application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation and it was reasonable for her to ask for a statutory review of the Councl’s homelessness decisions.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to provide any homelessness supportfollowing its acceptance of the relief duty in 2025. She says the Council clsoed her case following her failure to accept an offer of rented accommdoatio outside its area. She says she did not receive th eoffer until after it was clsoed and she was later evicted from her home and the Council rejected a new homelessness applciation.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• it was reasonable for someone to ask for a review or appeal.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. In 2025, Miss X applied to the Council as homeless. The Council accepted her under the Relief duty and confirmed this in writing. The Council then took steps to assess the type of accommodation that Miss X required.
6. In June 2025, the Council offered Miss X accommodation in a one-bedroom flat in another Council area in Hertfordshire. It assessed the accommodation to be suitable and affordable for Ms X. The Council says Miss X refused the accommodation and the Council discharged the duties they owed to her. Miss X says that she never received the Council’s offer which was sent by email and letter and that she did not accept anonymous calls at the time.
7. The Council issued a letter telling Miss X that the Relief duty had ended and that she had a right to ask for a review of the decision under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 Part 7. Miss X did not ask for a review but she submitted a complaint against the Council in August when she was evicted from her existing accommodation.
8. Ms X then tried to make a fresh homelessness application in August 2025. This application was refused as the Council found that it contained no new evidence or any change of circumstances. The Council did not uphold her complaint about the homelessness decision and she complained to us in October.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. In this case the Council followed the correct procedure for assessing Miss X’s application and advised her of her review/appeal rights under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 when it ended the Relief duty. It was reasonable for her to ask for a review and subsequently appeal if the review was unsuccessful.

Back to top

Final decision

11. Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to properly assess her homelessness application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation and it was reasonable for her to ask for a statutory review of the Councl’s homelessness decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman