Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a review of the decision and to appeal it to the court if he remained dissatisfied with the outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision that he was homeless and not in priority need so did not qualify for the main homelessness duty or receive temporary accommodation.

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. In November the Council wrote to him and informed him that it considered he was homeless but not in priority need therefore it would not accept him for temporary accommodation. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision in December.
7. In January the Council says it repeatedly asked Mr X to provide medical information because he said he had mental health issues related to its decision in November. The Council also tried to contact Mr X’s GP directly using information he provided without success. In March the Council sent a ‘minded to’ decision on the review outcome giving Mr X additional time to provide medical details from his GP before it made a final decision.
8. In June it issued Mr X with a final review decision that upheld the original view that he was non-priority homeless and had not provided information which indicated he was vulnerable. The decision letter advised Mr X about his right to appeal to the County Court if he disputed the Council’s reasoning.
9. Mr X had also complained about an offer of accommodation which was made to him and then withdrawn by a housing association in July 2023. He believes this was connected to the Council’s homelessness refusal. The Council says this took place four months before it issued a decision on his homeless application. The social landlord made an offer outside the Council’s allocations scheme and it withdrew the offer based on an inconsistency in Mr X’s application evidence when it carried out diligence checks.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a review of the decision and to appeal it to the court if he remained dissatisfied with the outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman