Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing case because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Mr X had rights of review and appeal in relation to the Council’s decision to end its main housing duty and it is reasonable for him to exercise those rights.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had mishandled his housing case since April 2023, leaving his household in unsafe, and overcrowded housing. He says he was given conflicting information about housing offers, which caused delays, and the Council failed to consider the serious health risks to household members, contrary to homelessness law.
2. Mr X also complained about the Council’s handling of his personal data.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Homelessness

8. Mr X is living in private rented accommodation, and his landlord has given him notice to leave the property.
9. The Council made an offer of long term temporary accommodation in April 2024. Mr X did not accept the offer, following which the Council ended its main housing duty on 2 May 2024. Mr X asked for a review of the decision. He said he had sent further evidence in late April that had not been considered.
10. On 14 May 2024, the Council responded to the review request. It said Mr X had not sent the additional evidence directly to the housing officer, which meant they had not seen it when making their decision on 2 May. As a goodwill gesture, it withdrew that decision and reinstated the main housing duty.
11. On 8 January 2025, the Council offered alternative long term temporary accommodation. Its letter explained in detail why it considered the property offered was suitable and set out his options, which included accepting the property and asking for a review of its suitability. It said it would end its main housing duty of the property was not accepted. Mr X said the property offered was not suitable and he did not accept it.
12. On 31 January 2025, the Council sent a further letter ending its main housing duty and setting out his right to ask for a review. It is appropriate for Mr X to ask for a review, and I understand he has done so. If he is unhappy with the outcome of the review he can appeal to the county court on a point of law. Since he has rights of review and appeal that are reasonable for him to exercise, we will not investigate his complaint about the Council about the way the Council considered the health needs of family members when deciding the housing offered was suitable.
13. In its complaint responses and in a letter to Mr X dated 13 September 2024, the Council confirmed:
• Mr X’s current housing was suitable in the short term whilst it identified long term temporary accommodation;
• Mr X’s current housing was not statutorily overcrowded, which it had confirmed after visiting the property in July 2023;
• There was no record of officers given contradictory advice. An officer said they did not think the Council had received any new medical evidence but would check the position. (The contradiction appears to relate to whether fresh medical evidence provided raised any new issues that had not previously been considered); and
• There was no record it had advised Mr X that private rented housing would not be affordable for him. On the contrary, it had advised him from the outset to consider private rented housing because there would be a long wait for social housing, even if he was placed in band 1 on its housing register. It had also advised on other options, including splitting the household to make it easier to secure suitable housing for family members.
14. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has handled Mr X’s homelessness application to justify further investigation.

Housing register

15. Mr X has also made an application to the Council’s housing register. The Council accepted the application, placed it in band 2 with an effective date of 27 July 2023 and said the household needs four bedrooms.
16. On 4 October 2023, Mr X asked the Council to review its decision. He said he was eligible for band 1 due to the exceptional needs of his household. The Council carried out a review and wrote to him with the outcome on 28 November 2023. Its letter explained it had considered all the information on its housing file, including the medial evidence provided and its published allocations scheme. It explained its reasons for deciding that band 2 priority was appropriate.
17. In October 2024, Mr X made a formal complaint about the priority awarded on the housing register, as well as raising other concerns about the way his housing case had been handled. In its complaint responses, the Council confirmed band 2 priority was appropriate and explained its reasons for deciding Mr X did not meet the criteria for band 1. It said it had reviewed his application several times and confirmed it had considered all the medical evidence Mr X had provided.
18. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the decision the Council reached was correct. Unless there was fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
19. The Council has considered the reasons Mr X argues his application should be placed in band 1, the evidence he has provided and its published allocations scheme. It has explained its reasons for deciding the application is appropriately placed in band 2, and there was no undue delay in making those decisions. On that basis, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify further investigation.

Handling of personal data

20. Mr X has also complained about the way the Council has handled personal data. We will not investigate this part of his complaint because the Information Commissioner’s Office id better placed to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement and because Mr X has rights of review and appeal in relation to the Council’s homelessness decisions and it is reasonable for him to exercise these. We will not investigate his complaint about the handling of data because another body is better placed to do so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman