Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homeless application in 2018. which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to accept his later application to the Housing Register.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homeless application in 2018. He says there was confusion and that he was forced to accept unsuitable accommodation. He says he has been unable to re-apply to the housing register because the Council says his current housing situation makes him ineligible.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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. Mr X applied to the Council as homeless in 2018. The Council discharged its homeless duty when he accepted a tenancy from a homeless charity provider which is the biggest such landlord in the area. Mr X says that he is unhappy with the shared accommodation he lives in and has been trying to be placed on the housing register again since then.
7. The Council rejected his applications in the past because it says he is in suitable accommodation and does not meet the needs priority under its housing allocations policy.
8. Recently Mr X told the Council that he has recently had mental health and health issues. the Council told him that if he provides documented support for this it may consider any new application. He has not done so to date.
9. We will not consider the complaint about the homeless application and the Council’s discharge of its duty because it was reasonable for Mr X to complain to us at the time, which was more than 12 months ago. I have seen no evidence to suggest that he could not have complained to us sooner.
10. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s application to the rousing register. He did not meet the requirements of the housing allocation policy in terms of his housing need. If Mr X can provide further documents about his health needs, then the Council is prepared to reconsider a new application.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homeless application in 2018. which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to accept his later application to the Housing Register.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman