Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homeless application. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a statutory review of the Council’s decision and this is currently in progress.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision that he is non-priority homeless and that it does not have a duty to provide him with accommodation. He also complained about the poor quality of accommodation provided under a cold weather emergency initiative.

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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied to the Council as homeless in January 2024. As a single man the Council made a decision that he was non-priority homeless and sent him a letter advising of this in April. During the winter period he was provided with accommodation by a church charity and later in a hotel under the cold weather emergency initiative. This accommodation was only available until 31 March.
6. Mr X complained to the Council about the accommodation and the presence of other rough sleepers under the influence of drugs and alcohol. The Council investigated his complaint but did not uphold it. Mr X then complained about the homeless non-priority decision and also the Council’s failure to find him suitable accommodation in April.
7. The Council told him that although it continued to work with voluntary rough sleeper organisations it has no duty to provide accommodation and the relief duty of 56 days ended in April. Mr X asked the Council for a statutory review of the homelessness decisions and the Council says this is currently underway. When the decisions are sent to Mr X he will have a further right of appeal to the County Court if he remains dissatisfied.

We will not investigate complaints where there is a right of review or appeal against them. Mr X has already initiated the review procedure under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 and this carries a further right of appeal to the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homeless application. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a statutory review of the Council’s decision and this is currently in progress.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman