Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council mishandled his homeless application as it failed to assess his application in line with the armed forces covenant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council mishandled his homeless application as it failed to assess his application in line with the armed forces covenant. He says this forced his family into the private rental sector.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X is an ex-member of the British armed forces. Mr X was medically discharged from the armed forces in 2022. Following this, he was given notice to leave his military accommodation.
6. Mr X applied to the Council as homeless in 2023. Mr X said the Council failed to assess his application properly and failed to give him appropriate priority as an ex-member of the British armed forces. He says the Council did not follow the armed forces covenant.
7. The Council accepted the prevention duty in December 2023. Mr X was also placed on the Council’s housing register, with priority Band C.
8. In March 2024, the Council closed Mr X’s homeless application because 56 days had passed since the prevention duty was accepted and because it had lost contact with Mr X. The Council issued its decision letter, which outlined Mr X’s right to request a review of the decision to close his homeless application
9. The armed forces covenant is a promise by the nation that the armed forces community should be treated fairly and face no disadvantage when accessing public and commercial services, with special provision made in appropriate cases for those who have sacrificed the most.
10. The armed forces covenant duty is a legal obligation on specified bodies to have due regard, when exercising relevant functions, to:
• the unique obligations of, and sacrifices made by, the armed forces;
• the principle that it is desirable to remove disadvantages arising for Service people from membership, or former membership, of the armed forces; and,
• the principle that special provision for Service people may be justified by the effects on such people of membership, or former membership, of the armed forces.
11. The armed forces covenant duty does not require the Council to automatically give social housing to serving/former members. Instead, the Council must evidence consideration of the three points listed above.
12. There is evidence the Council has had regard to its duty as its housing allocation policy disregards the usual residence criteria for armed forces/former member of armed forces. Further, the policy sets out that additional preference to be awarded to serving or former members.
13. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault as the Council’s policy is in line with the armed forces covenant duty.
14. Further, the Council appropriately issued a decision to Mr X detailing the reasons for closing his homeless application. If Mr X disagreed with the decision, it was reasonable for him to have asked the Council to complete a review. I cannot see any good reason for why he could not have.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman