Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homeless application. He says the Council has not provided them with a suitable property and that it refused to buy their current property from their landlord. This is because the potential fault has not caused any significant injustice. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault, and it was reasonable for Mr X to have requested the Council complete a review.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his homeless application. He says the Council has not provided them with a property that is suitable for their needs. Mr X is also unhappy the Council will not purchase their current property as the landlord has offered to sell to the Council.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X lives in a privately rented property. In May 2024, his wife approached the Council as homeless as the family had been served a section 21 notice by their landlord. The notice expired in July 2024.
6. Mr X also applied to join the Council’s housing register. Mr X says he needs a five or six bedroom property due to the size of his household. He also stated his children could not share bedrooms because of their disabilities.
7. In June 2024, the Council accepted the prevention duty and referred Mr X to its private rented sector team. The Council also asked Mr X and his wife to continue searching the private rented sector themselves for suitable properties. The Council confirmed it could assist with negotiations, rent in advance, and a deposit.
8. The case record shows the Council discussed with Mr X’s wife of her legal rights to remain in the property but that the Council did not state they had to remain. The Council confirmed that when the section 21 notice expires, they can leave the property and request interim accommodation. A case note also detailed the family confirmed they wanted to stay at the property and go through the eviction process.
9. In July 2024, the Council wrote to Mr X to advise that his housing register application had been declined as the household had too much income to qualify to join. The Council’s housing allocations policy confirmed an applicant would not qualify to join the register if they and/or their partner has an annual income of £50,000 per annum. The Council’s guidance document confirmed income included all benefits received.
10. The Council told Mr X of his right to request a review of its decision to decline his housing register application. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as it was reasonable for Mr X to have requested a review if he disagreed with the decision.
11. Regarding Mr X’s homeless case, the evidence shows the Council accepted the prevention duty in June 2024. The Council confirmed it continued to owe Mr X the prevention duty and that its private sector team continued to search for suitable properties for the family. This is supported by the case records.
12. The homelessness code of guidance details a person who has accommodation is to be treated as homeless where it would not be reasonable for them to continue to occupy that accommodation.
13. The guidance goes on to detail that where an applicant is:
• a shorthold tenant who has received a valid notice;
• the housing authority is satisfied the landlord intends to seek possession and further efforts from the housing authority to resolve the situation and persuade the landlord to allow the tenant to remain in the property are unlikely to be successful; and,
• there would be no defence to an application for a possession order;

then it is unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy beyond the expiry of a valid section 21 notice, unless the housing authority is taking steps to persuade the landlord to allow the tenant to continue to occupy the accommodation for a reasonable period to provide an opportunity for alternative accommodation to be found.

14. Therefore, it seems likely, based on the evidence available, the Council would have considered it was not reasonable for Mr X’s family to continue to occupy beyond the expiry of the section 21 notice.
15. However, although there may be potential here, I am satisfied the potential fault will not have caused any significant injustice. This is because Mr X’s family was advised by the Council they could leave and be provided with interim accommodation. However, they chose to remain in the property and to follow the eviction process. Therefore, it is likely, on balance, Mr X’s situation would still be the same even if the Council had accepted the relief duty.
16. Finally, the Council told Mr X why it could not purchase his current home while they remained in occupation. The Council explained purchasing the property with them as tenants would result in an allocation of social housing made outside the allocation scheme. The Council said it was not a fair approach to purchase the property and to allow Mr X and his family to remain in occupation. The Council confirmed any property built or purchased would need to be let to an applicant with the highest priority on its housing register, in line with its allocation scheme. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the potential fault has not caused any significant injustice. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault, and it was reasonable for Mr X to have requested the Council complete a review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman