Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing applications because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in allocating social housing to him and that it removed him from its housing register due to a delay in him renewing his visa. He also complained he was homeless but the Council failed to support him, despite him having a partner and child. Mr X says that, as a result of Council failing, he is sofa surfing.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Housing register

5. The Council had accepted Mr X onto its housing register. However, there was then a period when he had “no recourse to public funds”. It issued a decision removing him from the housing register and told him he could ask for a review within 21 days. Although he did not ask for a review in that period, the Council did review the application and said its decision was correct. It noted that, since it made its decision, Mr X had been granted leave to remain and suggested he reapply using the original reference number. The Council told me it had not received an application.
6. We are not an appeal body. Unless there was fault in the way the Council made its decision, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says all councils must allocate social housing in line with their published scheme.
7. The Council’s scheme says it will cancel says applications if the applicant becomes ineligible because they are subject to immigration control. Therefore, the decision, which was based on information Mr X gave to the homelessness team, was in line with its published scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify us investigating further.

Homelessness

8. Mr X asked for help because he was homeless. The Council decided in December 2024 that Mr X was not eligible for homelessness support. It issued a decision explaining its reasons and told Mr X he could ask for a review if he disagreed with its decision. Later in December, Mr X was given leave to remain at which point the Council accepted a relief duty and issued a personalised housing plan. Because his partner and daughter do not have recourse to public funds, the Council did not need to consider them when deciding he was not in priority need and therefore that it did not owe a duty to arrange interim accommodation for him.
9. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating further.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman