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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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

9. 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