Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision about Mr X’s homelessness application. It was reasonable for him to ask the Council for a review of its decision about his status.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide him with temporary accommodation following its acceptance of the homeless Relief duty in March. He says he has been homeless on the streets and as a single person with medical needs he should be provided with 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))

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 March 2024. The Council accepted him under the homelessness Relief duty and provided a personalised housing plan for him. It considered him as being homeless but that he did not meet the priority need category as he had no medical or other vulnerability which would qualify for the main housing duty.
6. The single persons homeless persons unit found different vacancies and directed Mr X to them over the following months. Mr X says they were too far from his locality and that he did not wish to be offered private sector accommodation, particularly if it had shared facilities and that he should be given proper temporary accommodation.
7. Mr X made a formal complaint about the treatment of his application and in July obtained new medical evidence. He was referred to our service by the Council following its ending of the complaint investigation.
8. Mr X could have challenged the original deciosn to offer the relief duty as he was non-priority in March and the Council’s letter contained such advice. Now that he has new medical information and the Relief duty has not resolved his homelessness he could ask for a review of the non-priority decision under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996. The original 21-day period has expired but the Council should consider using its discretion to provide a new review as Mr X has bene awaiting our deciosn on his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision about Mr X’s homelessness application. It was reasonable for him to ask the Council for a review of its decision about his status.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman