Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s homelessness application because we are unlikely to find fault. Miss X could have also appealed the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. She says its actions have had a detrimental impact on her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X approached the Council for homelessness support. The Council decided it owed Miss X a statutory homeless duty under s193 of the Housing Act 1996. In August 2025, Miss X moved into a hostel. This accommodation was offered to Miss X by the Council under its relief duty.
7. Miss X says the Council did not consider medical evidence she provided when placing her into a hostel. The Council says it reviewed the evidence and decided it was Miss X’s preference not to be in shared accommodation, but it was not a medical need. I am satisfied the Council fully considered medical evidence provided, in reaching its decision on whether it was suitable for Miss X to live in shared accommodation.
8. Miss X complained to the Council about its social housing register and allocation process. The Council explained that Miss X was placed on auto bid in line with its policy, to support her in securing permanent accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify investigating this part of the complaint.
9. In December 2025, the Council confirmed its decision to end its main duty towards Miss X. It said this was because Miss X voluntarily ceased to occupy the accommodation made available to her under the Council’s s193 duty. I understand Miss X is unhappy with the Council’s decision. But she could have appealed this decision and requested a review. The Council did inform Miss X of her appeal rights in its communication with her. It is reasonable to have expected her to do this, and therefore we will not investigate this part of the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. Miss X also could have appealed the Council’s decision, and it is reasonable to expect her to have done this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman