Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application and review. It was reasonable for her to use her right of appeal to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application and review. She also complains about the Council’s refusal to accept her complaint.
2. Miss X wants a review of the Council’s actions and an appropriate remedy for the hardship caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate
5. 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)
6. The County Court deals with appeals about homelessness decisions.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Miss X.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Miss X approached the Council for homelessness assistance in December 2024. Following enquiries, the Council accepted it owed her a homelessness duty in May 2025. The Council offered her private rented accommodation in June 2025 which Miss X accepted.
10. We will not investigate the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s homelessness application. Upon accepting it owed Miss X a homelessness duty, the Council appropriately took steps to relieve her homelessness and offered her accommodation which it had assessed to be suitable. If Miss X was unhappy with the accommodation offered, then she had the option to ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation, which she did do.
11. The Council decided the accommodation was suitable on review. We will not investigate the Council’s decision about this. This is because the review decision carried a right of appeal to the County Court. The Ombudsman is not an alternative appeal body. If Miss X disagreed with the Council’s decision then she could have appealed to the County Court. I have seen no evidence to suggest that it was unreasonable for her to appeal and therefore I will not investigate.

Complaint handling

12. We will not investigate the Council's refusal to consider Miss X's complaint through its complaints procedure. The Council's complaints policy allows it to decline complaints where there is an alternative statutory procedure. Miss X already asked for a review of the suitability of her accommodation. After the Council completed that review, she had the right to appeal to the County Court if she disagreed with the outcome. As the Council's decision could be challenged through the statutory review and appeal process, it was entitled to refuse to consider the matter through its complaints procedure. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it was reasonable for her to use her right of appeal to the County Court and because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s refusal of her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman