The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s homelessness support and decision. Part of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why it could not have been made sooner. And of the part that is not late, X had an appeal right to challenge the Council’s decision, and it would have been reasonable for them to have used this appeal right.
The complaint
X complained the Council had repeatedly failed to properly support them as part of its homelessness duty. They said because of this they were left without a home for a long period of time, and this affected their mental wellbeing. X now wants the Council to review their circumstances and support them under its homelessness duty.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
X complained the Council had not provided adequate support to them for four years after a change in their circumstances. X said its communication was poor and it had not proactively managed their case.
I have only considered the Council’s recent decision, which it provided to X in late 2025. X did not complain to us until July 2026 and therefore matters affecting X that occurred before July 2025 are late. I have not seen any evidence of good reasons why X could not have complained sooner and so will not exercise discretion to consider X’s earlier concerns going back to 2022.
In late 2025, the Council decided it did not owe a main housing duty, because they were not in priority need. X asked the Council to review this decision and in April 2026, the Council upheld its original decision and explained why this was the case. The Council explained to X they could appeal its decision at the County Court.
I will not investigate the Council’s decision that X was not in priority need. This is because X had an appeal right to challenge the Council’s decision and it would have been reasonable to expect them to use that appeal right. This is because if the County Court agreed the Council had made the wrong decision, unlike us, it could have overturned the decision and provided the Council with directions on how to put the matter right.
Final decision
We will not investigate X’s complaint because they had an appeal right and it would have been reasonable for them to have used that appeal right.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman