Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint against the Council’s handling of her homelessness application and complaints decisions. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault it’s decision-making to justify our involvement. It is unlikely that a further investigation would lead to a different outcome

The complaint

1. Summary: Miss X complained that the Council unreasonably delayed assessing her homelessness application, she says they ignored her homeless status and placed her in the incorrect housing band. She also complained that the Council did not properly review her case and their complaint responses did not address ongoing failings.

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
• 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))

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. Miss X approached the Council as homeless in May 2025, it accepted a relief duty because she advised she could no longer stay with family due to overcrowding.
6. Miss X complained that the Council unreasonably delayed assessing her homelessness application.
7. The evidence submitted showed that delays in processing her application occurred in September because Miss X had submitted contradicting information on her application about the number of family residing in the property, which did not reflect the circumstances she reported. These matters were investigated and the delay was resolved a week later.
8. Miss X also complained that the Council did not properly review her case and its complaint responses did not address ongoing failings.
9. The evidence shows that the Council considered her circumstances and medical needs in their assessments at every stage. It was determined that her medical needs were not significant enough to increase her housing banding. She already had the same priority for being homeless as she would for medical priority. The Council also advised on multiple occasions that she should seek private rented accommodation which she declined to do. The Council also offered temporary accommodation, which she declined. There is no evidence of ongoing failures.
10. Miss Y says the Council ignored her homeless status and placed her in the incorrect housing band.
11. The Council suggested Miss X could continue her application without joint applicants, as she would be eligible for one-bedroom properties. Miss X advised she would wait for as long as it took to be housed with family members. Due to this, it downgraded her housing banding from Band 2 to Band 5, as her situation was not urgent and she was not homeless. This was explained to her in a notice letter which ended the S189B(2) Relief duty in December 2025.
12. There is no evidence that the Council ignored Miss X’s homelessness status. In October 2025 the Council informed her that it may consider her intentionally homeless under Section 191(1) of the Housing Act. It invited her to submit further information because it believed she had knowingly sold her permanent and affordable property without cause.
13. The Council discharged its Relief homelessness duty. It found that Miss X was intentionally homeless and had done so in bad faith. This is because she had not disclosed details of her mortgage terms, which meant she could have occupied her home until 2027; she did not use the ensuing capital to secure stable housing, instead applying to the Council as homeless two weeks prior to the sale being completed. Miss X did not produce any satisfactory evidence to contradict this.
14. The Council informed her that she could request a review of their decision under Section 202 of the Housing Act, therefore paragraph 3 applies. There is no evidence that Miss X has made use of this right to appeal, and it was reasonable for her to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

Recommend for closure

We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint against the Council’s handling of her homelessness application and complaints decisions. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault it’s decision-making to justify our involvement. It is unlikely that a further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman