Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homeless application. He says the Council failed to consider his medical evidence. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his homeless application. He says the Council ignored him and failed to consider his medical evidence.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X made a homeless approach to the Council in February 2023. The Council completed an initial assessment and advised Mr X as he was single and not in priority need, he would be referred to the single homeless prevention service (SHPS). The Council failed to refer Mr X to the SHPS until July 2023.
7. In July 2023, the Council accepted the relief duty and completed a personalised housing plan for Mr X.
8. The Council said that between July and October 2023, the case officer sent Mr X details about suitable properties for him and made refers to housing associations. Mr X said the Council was only sending him information for shared or studio accommodation. Mr X said these were not suitable as his children stayed with him once a fortnight.
9. The Council acknowledged that Mr X’s children stayed with him. However, it noted the children had suitable accommodation with their mother and that mother was the primary custodian. For this reason, Council did not consider it reasonable for children to be considered as part of Mr X’s household when assessing his homelessness.
10. The question on who forms part of a household is for the Council to determine. Section 8 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance details that the test is whether the dependent children are living with, or could reasonably be expected to live, with the applicant. It goes on to note that if a child is not currently residing with the applicant, the housing authority will need to decide whether it would be reasonable for the child to do so.
11. In this case, the Council has appropriately turned its mind to the question of whether the children could reasonably be expected to live with Mr X and reached a decision. As there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council made its decision, it is entitled to make the decision.
12. The Council completed a medical assessment in October 2023. The recommendation was that Mr X’s medical issues did not render him significantly vulnerable and so did not affect the Council’s decision that Mr X was not in priority need.
13. At the end of October 2023, the Council issued its decision letter which detailed its decision that Mr X was not in priority need. The letter explained the information considered and the Council’s rationale for why Mr X was not vulnerable. It also detailed that Mr X’s medical information, assessed by a medical assessor, and decision that his medical issues do not make him significantly vulnerable. The Council advised Mr X of his right to request a review within 21 days. The Council closed Mr X’s case.
14. Finally, Mr X reapproached the Council as homeless in July 2024. The Council explained it had no duty to accept a new application as Mr X’s new application was based on exactly the same facts as his previous application in February 2023. In making this decision, the Council had considered the medical information provided by Mr X.
15. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council has compared the facts of the new application with those of its decision on the earlier application and decided the new application reveals no new facts. The Council has properly considered the matter and so is entitled to make its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

16. 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