Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application and its ending of the duty. There is insufficient evidence of significant injustice caused by any fault by the Council. It was reasonable for Miss X to ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation she was offered.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s delay in accepting her homelessness application. She says that she had to remain in her rented accommodation until a possession hearing and the Council should have accepted her under the relief duty earlier. She also complained about the suitability of the offer she was made which ended the Council’s homelessness duty. She says the accommodation is too far from her preferred area.

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 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 applied to the Council as homeless in November 2024 when her landlord served a two months’ notice to quit. She says the Council should have accepted her under the Relief duty of the homelessness legislation. The Council told her that the landlord did not take possession action following expiry of the notice and it believed this may not happen. The landlord applied to the court for possession in May 2025 without any warning. The Council accepted the Relief duty from this date but failed to give Miss X the Band B priority which she believes she would have had earlier and Band A once the Main housing duty came into force.
6. Miss X made a complaint to the Council and it backdated her banding for the Main housing duty. It says that having to wait until the court hearing did not disadvantage her because of the bids which she made on the housing register after 22 May on her earlier Band C status would not have been successful even had she been on the higher banding. The Council agreed to pay for the court hearing costs.
7. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
8. In this case there is no evidence that the Council applied a blanket policy of waiting for the landlord to take possession action. There was a significant gap between the end of the notice period and the decision to proceed to court. If the Council had accepted her earlier Miss X would have spent longer in temporary accommodation and it also agreed to cover the court costs resulting from her continuing to occupy her home.
9. Miss X was moved to the main housing duty and placed in temporary accommodation following the court possession action. In early 2025 she was offered a private sector tenancy which she accepted as this was made as a reasonable offer under the homelessness duty. The Council wrote to her in January 2026 under s.193 of the Housing Act 1996 to inform her that it was ending the homelessness duty because she had been re-housed and was no longer homeless. The letter advised her of her right to challenge the suitability of the accommodation offered under s.202 of the legislation within 21 days.
10. Miss X subsequently complained about the suitability of the accommodation due to its distance of 38 miles from her previous address. She had not requested a s.202 review when she complained to us.
11. We will not investigate the matter of suitability of the accommodation because it was reasonable for Miss X to ask for a review. If the review had been unsuccessful she would have further rights of appeal to the County Court if she believed it was unreasonable.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application and its ending of the duty. There is insufficient evidence of significant injustice caused by any fault by the Council. It was reasonable for Miss X to ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation she was offered.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman