Liverpool City Council (24 018 261)

Category : Housing > Homelessness

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 30 Mar 2025

The Ombudsman's final decision:

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 Council’s decisions on his case.

The complaint

  1. Mr X says the Council told him that it had no duty to provide him with accommodation even though he was faced with homelessness when the friends he was living with asked him to leave.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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))

  1. 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

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Mr X says he approached the Council as being potentially homeless in 2024. The Council accepted his application under the Relief duty and issued a personal housing plan within 5 weeks of the initial assessment. The Council told Mr X that he was not eligible for interim accommodation because he was a single applicant with no evidence of vulnerability and that he was non-priority homeless.
  2. In November 2024 the Council told Mr X that it had ended the Relief duty because 56 days had passed and he had not secured alternative accommodation.
  3. Both the non-priority homeless and the ending of the Relief duty decisions contained details of how Mr X could exercise his right for a review of the decision under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 Part 7. These are statutory review rights and carry a further right of appeal to the County Court. It was reasonable for him to pursue these rights and he did not do so, and did not complain to us until two months after the last decision.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. 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 Council’s decisions on his case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings