Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s homelessness application. It was reasonable for him to ask for a statutory review of the decision that he was non-priority homeless when the relief duty ended.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness relief duty without offering him accommodation. He says the Council repeatedly asked for information which he believes he had provided already.

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))

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 says he was rough sleeping after losing his accommodation in 2023. He applied to the Council as homeless in August 2023 and was assessed by the Council under the relief homelessness duty. The Council says it asked Mr X to provide income and other documents but he did not do so for it to make a full assessment.
6. The relief duty expired after 56 days but the Council did not inform him that it had ended the duty or what his homeless priority was. A council can continue with the relief duty after 56 days if the applicant has not found housing. Mr X did not find housing and complained in 2024 about the situation. The Council apologised and issued the decision that he was non-priority homeless within days together with confirmation that the relief duty had ended also.
7. The Council’s decision letters advised him of his statutory right to a review of the decisions within 21 days under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996. Mr X did not seek a review and two months later complained to us.
8. Although the Council delayed issuing the decisions on the status of priority and relief duty to Mr X, the outcome was negative as it concluded he had no priority as a single, non-vulnerable applicant. He was given an opportunity to challenge the decision at review, as he would have been had the decisions been made earlier. He did not complete the review request within 21 days. It is still possible for him to ask the Council to consider an out of time review but this would be at its discretion.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s homelessness application. It was reasonable for him to ask for a statutory review of the decision that he was non-priority homeless when the relief duty ended.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman