Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. It has already apologised for some delay and poor communication, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. There is insufficient evidence of fault in relation to the offer of alternative temporary accommodation in December 2025 nor in the handling of the suitability review to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application and its failure to properly assess the suitability of alternative temporary accommodation offered to her in December 2025. Ms X said the Council’s failings had significantly affected her mental health.

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
• 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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Delay and communication issues

5. The Council accepted a relief duty in July 2025 because she was homeless. It offered bed and breakfast accommodation on 1 July and moved her to self-contained accommodation later that month.
6. The relief duty usually lasts 56 days, following which the Council must decide whether it owes a main housing duty. This means the Council should have decided if it owed the main housing duty in late August 2025. The Council did not accept the main housing duty until 25 October 2025.
7. In its complaint response, the Council accepted a delay in making enquiries and a failure to explain what enquiries it was making. It also accepted its officer could have used more sensitive language in a call in September. It apologised and allocated a new officer.
8. These faults caused Ms X some distress, but I am satisfied an apology was sufficient to remedy the injustice caused and that further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Temporary accommodation

9. The Council offered Ms X alternative temporary accommodation (TA) in December 2025. The same day she asked for a review. She said she had a mobility issue that meant she could not manage the stairs. The Council said it was not aware of the issue and asked Ms X to complete a medical form, which she did. In mid-January, it carried out a review. In light of the additional information Ms X had provided, it agreed the TA offered was unsuitable and withdrew the offer.
10. It was not fault for the Council to make the offer initially because it was not aware of the mobility issue when it did so. In any case, it was appropriate for Ms X to ask for a suitability review, and the law says the Council has 56 days to carry out that review. There is no indication of fault in the way the Council carried out the review, which led to it withdrawing the offer and no delay in it doing so.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in relation to the offer of alternative temporary accommodation or carrying out the suitability review to justify our involvement. The Council accepted some fault, for which it has already apologised and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman