Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide accommodation when it considered Mr X’s homelessness applications. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide him with accommodation when it investigated his homelessness applications from 2022 onwards. He says it failed to properly consider his medical needs and he has been left without accommodation on more than one occasion.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says he has not been offered any temporary/interim accommodation when he made homelessness applications since 2022. We will not exercise discretion to investigate the events which happened prior to 12 months before he made his most recent complaint in January 2025. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.
7. Mr X made a new homeless application in late 2024 and the Council accepted him under the Relief duty. It provided a personal housing plan and gave advice about finding housing but it did not consider that he should be provided with interim accommodation and subsequently issued a non-priority homeless decision.
8. Mr X had a right to ask for a review of the Council’s decision and he did so in March 20205. The Council withdrew the homelessness decision pending the review outcome. In July 2025 the Council ended its Relief duty because he had not been successful in finding housing after 56 days and also told him again that he was considered non-priority homeless.
9. The Council’s decision to end the relief duty and the new non-priority homeless decision are subject to review rights under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996. The Council had no duty to provide accommodation if it considered that Mr X was not in a priority need group. He provided medical evidence to support his review in March 2025 but the Council says this did not persuade it to change its decision.

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to use the review/appeal procedure provided by the legislation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide accommodation when it considered Mr X’s homelessness applications. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman