Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s review of a homelessness decision. It was reasonable from Mr X to appeal against the original non-priority decision and the subsequent reviews of that decision to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to properly consider his responses to a non-priority homeless decision which it issued in August 2025. He says the Council failed to respond to his requests for an extension of the 21 -day timescale to submit a review request and that it concluded the review without his representatives being able to submit further documents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
3. 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,
• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council failed to follow a fair and lawful homelessness review process. It ignored two written requests asking for confirmation of the review deadline and for an extension while his representative awaited the housing file from a Subject Access Request. He says as a result, the review was completed without allowing him or his representative to submit any evidence or representations.
7. The Council issued a non-priority homeless letter under the Housing Act 1996 Part 7 provisions in August 2025. Mr X asked for a review of the decision under s.202 of the legislation. He says he subsequently asked for details of the timeline end date and requested an extension to provide information which his representatives had asked for under a Freedom of Information request. He says the Council decided the review in October without the benefit of additional information he submitted after the due date.
8. The Council issued the review decision but then withdrew it when Mr X complained and it considered the late information he submitted before re-issuing the deciosn on 31 October. The new decision letter had an updated 21-day appeal date for any challenge he wished to make under s.204 of the legislation.
9. The Ombudsman cannot overturn a decision made by a council on a homelessness application. we would expect someone to use the review and appeal procedure offered by the homelessness legislation. In this case Mr X used the review procedure and was advised of his appeal rights. He had a second review when the original one was withdrawn and this did not change the original non-priority decision. It was reasonable for Mr X or his representatives to seek a review of the decision by way of an appeal to the County Court under s.204 of the legislation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s review of a homelessness decision. It was reasonable from Mr X to appeal against the original non-priority decision and the subsequent reviews of that decision to the County Court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman