Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that she is not in priority need and its refusal to take a new homelessness application. Ms X had rights of appeal to the county court that it was reasonable for her to use and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the recent decision that it will not accept her new application.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about Council decisions related to her homelessness application, specifically that she is not in priority need and so it has no duty to provide her with accommodation. She also complains it has refused to accept a new homelessness application form her. She wants the Council to provide her with housing.

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;

• 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))

3. 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)

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. Ms X applied to the Council for support to relieve her homelessness in 2023. The Council accepted she was homeless and that it had a duty to support her to find suitable housing. However, the Council decided she was not in priority need and so this duty did not extend to providing her with accommodation.
7. Ms X disagreed with this decision and asked for a review. Ms X submitted additional information in support of her review. The Council reviewed all the evidence and sought advice from its medical advisor. It was satisfied the original decision that she was not in priority need was correct and so it did not change its decision. It advised her that if she wanted to appeal this decision then she could lodge an appeal with the county court.
8. The Council later ended its homelessness relief duty to Ms X. It advised her that if she was dissatisfied with this decision, she could request a review.
9. A few months later, Ms X made a new homelessness application to the Council. The Council considered her application but decided it would not accept it. It said there had been no change in her housing circumstances and no new medical information since her previous application and so it would not accept the new application.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. If Ms X wanted to appeal the non-priority need decision, she had a right of appeal to the county court and it was reasonable that she used this. The decision to end the homelessness relief duty also had an internal right of review which it was reasonable for Ms X to use. If this review was not in her favour, this would also have raised a right of appeal to the county court which she could have used.
11. Where a person makes a new homelessness application, a council must consider it and decide if there are any new facts which make it different from the earlier application. Where it decides there are no new facts, it is not required to consider the new application and can rely on the previous one. In this case, the Council has appropriately considered Ms X’s new application and decided that it will not accept it as there is no change in her circumstances. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this decision to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is reasonable for her to use her rights of appeal to the county court and there is insufficient evidence of fault in its recent decision that it will not accept a new homelessness application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman