Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homeless application. It is reasonable for Mr X to ask the Council for a statutory review of its decision on his case. He will have a further right of appeal to the County Court if the review is unsuccessful and he still wishes to challenge it.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. He says it delayed accepting his original application in 2023 following a notice to quit from his landlord and lost his submitted documents. He says the final homelessness decision that he is non-priority is unfair and does not take account of his and his wife’s circumstances.

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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied to the Council as homeless in 2023 when his landlord issued a notice to quit. He says the Council did not accept his application for several months because it required him to provide information which he says it subsequently lost and asked for it to be resubmitted. The Council says that the documents were not lost but accepts that the caseworker leaving led to some delays and requests for information by the new caseworker which he had already submitted. However, Mr X’s application was accepted before the landlord issued him with a possession order.
7. The Council accepted Mr X’s application under the homelessness relief duty but it then issued a decision that he was homeless but not in priority need. Mr X provided medical information which he said challenged the Council’s decision. The Council withdrew the decision in order to make more enquiries about his and his wife’s medical needs.
8. The Council issued a new decision in 2024 that the homelessness relief duty had ended and that it owed Mr X no further homeless duty because he was not in priority need, even after his medical needs had been considered. The letter included information about how to ask for a review under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 and where to seek assistance if required.
9. We expect a complainant to use a statutory review procedure where this is available and in the case of homeless decisions there is a further right of appeal to the County Court available if the review outcome is not satisfactory for the applicant.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homeless application. It is reasonable for Mr X to ask the Council for a statutory review of its decision on his case. He will have a further right of appeal to the County Court if the review is unsuccessful and he still wishes to challenge it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman