Summary: There is no fault by the Council. Mr X says he is homeless. The Council has now considered a new homeless application from Mr X, which resolves his complaint that the Council refused to accept a new application. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to ask the Police to make a visit on Mr X’s welfare.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complained the Council refused to consider a new homeless application.
2. Mr X also complains about events that led up to his recent homeless application, including that the Council waited 6 days before raising safety concerns with the Police and did not contact him first.
3. Mr X says that he remains homeless.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated events before October 2023 when Mr X’s previous complaint to the Ombudsman was closed.
7. I have not investigated events after June 2024 when the Council accepted a new homeless application from Mr X. Mr X has asked for a review of the decision on this new application and if he remains dissatisfied he has a right of appeal to the County Court.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I read the papers put in by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him.
9. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
10. Mr X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

11. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. It lasts for 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
12. At the end of the relief duty, a council must decide if it owes the applicant the main housing duty. It will owe the main duty to applicants who are eligible, in priority need, and unintentionally homeless. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
13. The law says a person is intentionally homeless if they deliberately do, or fail to do, anything which means they stop occupying accommodation which is available for them and would otherwise be reasonable for them to continue to live in. (Housing Act 1996, section 191)
14. If a council decides an applicant is intentionally homeless, it must issue a decision in writing and tell the applicant about their right to ask for a review of this decision within 21 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 184)
15. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) and any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
16. Following a review, an applicant has a right to appeal to court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)

Key facts

17. Mr X’s previous complaint to the Ombudsman about the Council’s decision that he was intentionally homeless (23 006 889) was closed in October 2023.
18. The Council emailed Mr X in January 2024 to say it would not accept a new homeless application from him. It also said that officers had contacted the Police to check on Mr X’s welfare. This was because Mr X had made some worrying statements in an email to the Council. The contact with the emergency services was not made until 6 days after Mr X’s email as the Council Officer was out of the office.
19. Mr X made an official complaint and the Council responded on 16 February 2024. This letter said that ‘while of course Mr X could make a new homelessness application to the Council….. the Council is able to reject a fresh application if it establishes there are no new facts or if the new facts are trivial’.

My analysis

20. Since Mr X made the complaint, the Council has taken a new homelessness application from him and has made the decision that he is intentionally homeless on 19 July 2024. Mr X has asked for a review of this decision. So, I find no fault by the Council as it has carried out the actions Mr X wanted, it has considered a new homeless application from him.
21. There is no fault in the Council arranging for a visit to check on Mr X’s welfare. The Council Officer responded as soon as they received the email and acted out of concern for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is not upheld as there was no fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman