Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application priority and its offer of unsuitable accommodation which resulted in it ending its homelessness duty to Mr X. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment of the housing application. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal the homelessness statutory review decision by using his right of appeal under the homelessness legislation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council only assessing him for Band 2 with a 2-bedroom need when he says he should have priority for a 3-bedroom property. He says he was offered a 2-bedroom secure tenancy by the Council and that this was unsuitable for his needs. As a result, it discharged its homelessness duty unfairly.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I have considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X has been a non-secure tenant in Council accommodation since 2017. The Council is redeveloping the estate where he lives and existing tenants have to be decanted to other accommodation. Mr X has a housing application for him and his family and he is assessed as band 2 with a 2-bedroom need. He disputes the assessment because he says his two adult sons require separate rooms because one has medical needs.
7. Mr X asked for a non-statutory review of his application under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996. The Council considered all the evidence he provided and a medical assessment but concluded that 2-berooms was the correct needs assessment for his case.
8. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. I have seen no evidence of fault which would suggest that Mr X should be placed in a higher banding.
9. Mr X was offered alternative accommodation in July 2025 under the Council’s homelessness duty. He rejected the offer because he said that it was unsuitable due to location, 2-beroom size and the type of accommodation. The Council subsequently discharged its homelessness duty because he had refused a suitable offer.
10. Mr X challenged the Council’s decisions by way of a review under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 part 7. The Council review its decisions and the suitability of the offer but did not change the decisions on his case. The Council issued a discharge of homelessness duty under s.193 of the Housing Act 1996. The letter to Mr X was comprehensive and set out his right to appeal the review decision under s.204 to the County Court.
11. Mr X did not appeal but instead submitted a formal complaint. When the complaints procedure was exhausted he complained to us. It was reasonable for him to appeal against the review decision using his rights under the homelessness legislation as the Council advised him.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application priority and its offer of unsuitable accommodation which resulted in it ending its homelessness duty to Mr X. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment of the housing application. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal the homelessness statutory review decision by using his right of appeal under the homelessness legislation

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman