Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homeless application. It was reasonable for Mrs X to use the review and appeal process available to challenge homelessness decisions.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision that she was non-priority homeless when she applied in 2024. She also says that she was not offered interim accommodation for the period when she was awaiting the outcome of her review of the Council’s decision.

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 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’s review of her case.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X says she was made homeless when her landlord served notice and later evicted her. She says the Council required the building to be demolished but advised her to stay until she was evicted by court order which caused her to receive court costs against her.
7. Mrs X approached the Council as homeless but it decided in September 2024 that she was non-priority homeless under s.184 of the Housing Act 1996. She applied for a review of the decision under s.202 of the Act. She believed the Council should l have provided interim accommodation during the period from when she asked for a review until it made a decision.
8. The Council responded to Mrs X’s review request within 2 weeks. It upheld the original decision that she was non-priority homeless. It also told her that as she was non-priority homeless and not vulnerable due to medical or other reasons it would not provide interim housing. The decision letter advised her that she could challenge the decision by way of the courts.
9. Mrs X did not appeal to the court and complained to us in 2025. We cannot overturn a decision made by a council about someone’s homeless application. If a council has notified someone that they are non-priority homeless and it has no duty to provide accommodation we would expect them to use the review and appeal procedure to challenge that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homeless application. It was reasonable for Mrs X to use the review and appeal process available to challenge homelessness decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman