Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a property allocated through the Council’s housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement, and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants, which is rehousing in a specific area.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application and said he was pressured into accepting housing that is not suitable for his household due to its location. Mr X said the location had an adverse impact on his physical and mental health and made it difficult to get his child to school.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X made a homelessness application after his relationship broke down. The Council decided he was “not homeless” and closed his case. Mr X made a previous complaint to us about that decision, so we will not consider the Council’s handling of his homelessness application further.
6. Mr X also made a housing register application. The Council accepted the application and awarded silver band priority because he was homeless or at risk of homelessness. I understand his priority changed after the “not homeless” decision was made, but silver band was later reinstated, and Mr X was in first position on three bids by early December 2024, so any change to his priority did not cause a sufficient injustice for us to investigate further.
7. In early December, Mr X expressed a preference for property A, of the three bids on which he was in first place, and the Council subsequently allocated it to him. Mr X expressed some concern in December that he could not move in before Christmas, but I understand the tenancy started in mid-January 2025.
8. Later in January, Mr X raised concerns about property A, including that he felt isolated because transport links were poor so his family could not provide the level of support he had previously had, that his mental health support had been interrupted due to him having to change GP, and that it was difficult getting his child to school. He complained he had been given incorrect advice that he would not be rehoused in his current area, so he had felt pressured into bidding for property A, which was in a different area.
9. The Council said, in its complaint response, there was no record it gave Mr X incorrect advice about his search area. Even if it had advised him he would not be successful when bidding in his current area, Mr X was free to decide which properties to bid on and there was no reason for the Council to pressure him into accepting any articular property or area because its homelessness duty had ended in September 2024. Whilst I acknowledge Mr X is unhappy with property A, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify further investigation. Further, we would not be able to achieve the outcome he wants, which is rehousing nearer to his support network. The Council has advised him on his options when his introductory tenancy becomes secure.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman