Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the handling of Miss X’s homeless application or the matters arising from it. Part of her complaint is late and for those parts which are in time, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council did not consider her tenancy status when considering her housing application.

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.
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 investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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. Miss X left her property in July 2024 due to a disagreement with her landlord. Miss X said she was homeless and illegally evicted.
8. The Ombudsman will not usually exercise discretion to investigate matters that took place more than 12 months prior to the complainant becoming aware of them. The eviction occurred more than 12 months ago so these matters are late and I can see no good reason to exercise discretion; therefore, we will not consider them. Instead, I will consider the events which took place from December 2024 which is around 12 months before Miss X came to us.
9. Miss X approached the Council for homelessness support. Under the main housing duty, the Council gave her temporary accommodation at a hotel. Later Miss X left the hotel due to a disagreement with the staff.
10. The Council offered Miss X alternative temporary accommodation. When arriving at the accommodation she had a disagreement with staff. The offer of accommodation was removed. The Council wrote to Miss X and said it had discharged its main housing duty because of her behaviour.
11. Miss X complained to the Council and said it had only given her one housing option, no support, and she was unaware of her housing status.
12. In its response to Miss X, the Council provided details of temporary housing it had offered her. The Council shared a timeline of Miss X’s support and where it had offered her a letter explaining her homelessness status. It also explained it no longer would consider support for Miss X because of her behaviour.
13. I acknowledge Miss X does not agree with the Council’s management of her homelessness application or the support it gave her. The Council decided it had a duty to provide Miss X with temporary housing and did so. However, due to Miss X’s behaviour which led to the loss of her temporary accommodation, the Council considered it had discharged its main housing duty. This was something it was entitled to do. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s homelessness application or the support she was receiving.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because part of it is late and for those parts which are in time, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman