Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council did not do enough to relieve Mr X’s homelessness. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had not done enough to relieve his homelessness. He said the Council did not assess him as having a priority need, or recognise his need for a live-in carer, Miss Y. He said it did not arrange suitable interim accommodation.
2. Mr X and Miss Y also have a joint housing register application. They complained about the amount of time it was taking to make a successful bid on a property. They disagreed with the Council’s decision they were only eligible for a two-bedroomed property. Mr X and Miss Y want the Council to allocate them a flat.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• 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))

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X and Miss Y approached the Council for homelessness support in August 2024, after Mr X’s landlord issued a Section 21 eviction notice. The Council accepted it owed Mr X and his son the prevention duty. It did not accept a homelessness duty to Miss Y as she had her own tenancy elsewhere, therefore was not at risk of homelessness. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it made that decision to justify our involvement.
10. The Section 21 notice expired at the start of September. The Council wrote to Mr X accepting the relief duty. It said it had reason to believe he was priority need as he had a child. It said Mr X could ask for a review if he was unhappy with its homelessness decision.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council did not award him priority need based on medical grounds. That is because it was reasonable for him to ask the Council for a review of its homelessness decision if he thought it had not considered it properly. If that review was not in his favour, he would have had a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law.
12. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council did not provide interim accommodation after it accepted the relief duty. The case notes show the Council did offer to find Mr X interim accommodation but explained that would initially be in a hotel as the Council had no space in its temporary accommodation units.
13. The Council can use hotel or bed and breakfast as interim accommodation. However, any accommodation offered must be suitable for the housing applicant’s needs. As Mr X would not consider hotel accommodation, we cannot make a decision on the suitability of accommodation, as none was provided.
14. The Council subsequently offered Mr X temporary accommodation in January 2025. This was before his landlord sought a notice of eviction. Therefore, even if there was a delay in the Council finding alternative accommodation, it has not caused Mr X a significant injustice. He has remained in suitable accommodation up until this point and the Council offered temporary accommodation before Mr X incurred any costs relating to his eviction. If Mr X was unhappy with the suitability of the temporary accommodation, it was reasonable for him to use his right of review.
15. Mr X and Miss Y also complained the Council only awarded a two-bedroomed property on their housing register application. The Council made that initial decision in 2022. Therefore, any complaint about it is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now.
16. When the Council met with Mr X and Miss Y in 2024, it explained they would need to provide evidence that Mr X required a carer to support the request for a third bedroom. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council asking Mr X to provide supporting information. The Council agreed the need for a third bedroom in February 2025. There is nothing to suggest there was a significant delay in it making that decision. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman