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

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to end his housing register application because he had been out of the Borough for more than 3 years. He said the Council failed to follow its allocations scheme and its error meant he remained in unsuitable accommodation longer than necessary.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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

What happened

5. The Council accepted Mr X’s application to join its housing register in 2020 and awarded band 3. Shortly afterwards, the Council discharged a homelessness duty by placing Mr X in a house in multiple occupation (HMO) out of the Borough.
6. In mid-May 2025, Mr X asked the Council to review his housing register application because he said he was at risk in his current accommodation. The Council suspended his application, pending enquiries and advised him to contact its homelessness team.
7. Mr X made a homelessness application in late May 2025. The Council assessed his application and accepted a prevention duty.
8. In June, the Council decided to end Mr X’s housing register application on the grounds he had been placed in private rented sector (PRS) accommodation out of the Borough more than three years before. Mr X appealed that decision on the basis his landlord was a registered social landlord, but the Council maintained he had been placed in PRS.
9. In October 2025, the Council accepted a relief duty. It also reinstated Mr X’s housing register application, despite him not having lived in the Borough for three years, in recognition of his difficult circumstances. It awarded band 2B because he was accepted as homeless, effective from 28 May 2025, which was when Mr X made the homelessness application.
10. In December 2025, the Council ended its homelessness duty because Mr X had found alternative private rented sector accommodation.

My assessment

11. There is a duty to refer to the homelessness team where the Council has reason to believe a person may be homeless and eligible for housing support. A person may be homeless if it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy their current accommodation. In my view, the information Mr X provided in his email in mid-May met that threshold, so the housing register team should have made a referral. It did not do so. It did suggest Mr X made a homelessness application, which he did. The failure to make a referral did not cause Mr X sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
12. The Council initially accepted a prevention duty and there appears to have been a delay in it accepting a relief duty. However, there is no indication it considered Mr X was in priority need, so it did not owe a duty to arrange interim accommodation for him. On that basis, the delay did not cause Mr X a significant injustice. The Council had given advice about looking for private rented sector accommodation, which Mr X secured in November 2025.
13. I have not seen the Council’s decision to end his housing register application, although I have seen various emails about that decision. At stage 2 of the complaint process, the Council reviewed the circumstances and made a discretionary decision to reinstate the application, despite him having been out of the Borough for three years. It awarded band 2B, effective from the date of his recent homelessness application.
14. The Council’s allocation scheme says applicants normally need to remain resident in the Borough but says, where a homeless applicant is placed in PRS out of the Borough, they can remain on the housing register for three years. The Council said Mr X was placed in PRS, which Mr X disputes because he says his landlord was a registered social landlord. However, his tenancy says he had an assured shorthold tenancy, not a secure tenancy, and paid rent at the market rate, which means he was not a social tenant. Further, the allocations scheme specifically says a band 2 award is effective from the date of the homelessness application. The Council’s decision appears to be in line with its published scheme and there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman