Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to properly assess a homelessness application and its assessment of Ms X’s priority on the housing register. It was reasonable for Ms X to challenge the decision that she was non-priority homeless and the suitability of her accommodation by way of a review and appeal under the homeless legislation. Some of the matters she has complained about took place more than 12 months before she complained to us and we will not exercise discretion to consider them now.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application in 2024 and about its decision that she was non-priority homeless in 2025. She also says the temporary accommodation she was in was unsuitable and she had raised this as long ago as 2018 when the Council told her it was suitable.

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))

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X was in long-term temporary accommodation for several years before her landlord served notice to quit in 2024 because the property owner wanted vacant possession. Ms X says she had problems with the accommodation for years before this and that she had told the Council that it was unsuitable due to disrepair and neighbour issues in 2022. The Council said the accommodation was suitable for her needs.
8. We will not exercise discretion to investigate these matters because they took place more than 12 months before Ms X complained to us and There is no evidence to suggest that Ms X could not have complained to us sooner There is no evidence to suggest that Ms X could not have complained to us sooner.
9. The time for receiving complaints is from when someone became aware of the matter they wished to complain about, not when they complained to the Council or it issued its final response. We would expect someone to complain to us within a year, even if they were dissatisfied with the time the complaints procedure was taking.
10. The Council accepted Ms X under the prevention duty of the Housing Act 1996 but and issued a personalised housing plan (PHP). However, Ms X says the plan was inadequate and did not give her enough information about what was to happen. She also says the Council delayed sending a formal letter about her status and failed to negotiate sufficiently with her landlord in the initial stages.
11. We will not investigate the steps the Council took in the PHP provision because it was reasonable for her to challenge this decision under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 Part 7. The Council subsequently accepted her under the Relief homelessness duty but considered that she was non-priority homeless and did not offer her interim accommodation because of this. It gave advice about how to look for alternative accommodation and nominated her to another organisation.
12. Decisions on homelessness priority carry a right of review and appeal under s.202 and Ms X used her right to a review of the non-priority decision. The Council did not uphold her review and she has now exercised her right to appeal the decision in the County Court under s.204.
13. We cannot investigate matters where someone has exercised their right to appeal to a court or a tribunal.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to properly assess a homelessness application and its assessment of Ms X’s priority on the housing register. It was reasonable for Ms X to challenge the decision that she was non-priority homeless and the suitability of her accommodation by way of a review and appeal under the homeless legislation. Some of the matters she has complained about took place more than 12 months before she complained to us and we will not exercise discretion to consider them now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman