Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to make an offer of housing within a particular timeframe to Miss X who is homeless. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council's failure to take reasonable steps in securing accommodation for her. She also complained that the Council failed to take into consideration her risk of homelessness despite her current living conditions being unsuitable. Miss X considers the communication from the Council to be poor and this has caused her worry and uncertainty.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X was accepted as homeless under the Main housing duty by the Council and awarded band 2 on the Housing Register in June 2025. She says that she has not been regularly updated about how her case is being progressed since then.
6. Once a homeless applicant is accepted for the Main housing duty they are given a priority banding on the housing register and can bid for vacancies. The Council’s duty under the Housing Act 1996 Part 7 is to provide temporary accommodation of homeless persons until long term housing can be sourced. This may be social housing or private sector renting.
7. It is clear from the correspondence that the Council has told Miss X about what will happen under the homelessness duty and when she complained she was still living with a parent and was not in need of temporary accommodation. Miss X asked to be considered for a direct let or a discretionary priority increase. The Council told her that under its allocations policy she does not qualify for a direct let, which is only open to existing tenants and she does not meet the threshold for a discretionary offer or Band 1 priority.
8. The Council also responded to an enquiry by Miss X’s Member of Parliament and advised them that the waiting list for 2- and 3-bedroom vacancies in social housing was 5-7 years at present.
9. The Council has a duty to provide temporary accommodation if Miss X loses her accommodation, but there is no timescale in the legislation for when she will be rehoused in long-term accommodation. Once within the Council’s allocations process it is for the applicant to make bids on any vacancies they may be eligible for. There is no requirement for the Council to have a dedicated officer responsible for each housing applicant.
10. 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.
11. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to make an offer of housing within a particular timeframe to Miss X who is homeless. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman