Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged fault in the Council’s handling of a homelessness application, including delays and poor service. This is because the Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy which is proportionate to the injustice caused. We cannot investigate or remedy the allegation that delays also resulted in his homelessness being relieved much later than it should have been. This is because the complainant had a right of appeal over this issue which he could reasonably have exercised.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr X) complains about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application submitted in 2023. He says the Council failed to meet its duty of care to him by not awarding the main housing duty under s.193 of the Housing Act 1996 (the Act). Mr X explains this is because the Council initially disregarded information such as his health problems, which he adds was necessary for it to determine he had ‘priority need’ for housing. Because an applicant must have priority need in order for the Council to owe the main housing duty, Mr X says the disregard of key information delayed it accepting this duty and, therefore, suitable housing.
2. In addition, Mr X complains that despite asking the Council in December 2023 to carry out a review of how his application had been handled, it did not complete that review and notify him of this until June 2024. In summary, Mr X says the Council did not deal with his requests in a timely manner, and that this has resulted in him being forced to live in unsuitable accommodation for longer than he should have. Mr X explains this has caused him distress and alarm. As a desired outcome, he wants the Council to be held accountable for these issues, and to improve its service, as well as its compliance with legal duties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an investigation if we decide this would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Homeless applicants may request a review under s.202 of the Act within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. Under s.204, if an applicant is dissatisfied with a review decision (such as not being in ‘priority need’), or is not notified of the decision on the review within eight weeks, an applicant may appeal to county court on any point of law arising from the decision or, as the case may be, the original decision.
7. If we were to investigate, it is likely we would find fault causing Mr X an injustice because the evidence shows the Council has not dealt with his complaint issues with reference to his review rights. Instead, the Council dealt with these under its corporate complaints policy. The Guidance for Local Authorities (2012) on Review Procedures sets out that reviews should follow a separate and clearly set out process, which allows for all relevant factors to be considered in a reasonable time. The Act, under s.203, also required the Council to make a decision on Mr X’s review request within eight weeks. By only dealing with the issues as a corporate complaint, Mr X did not receive his right to a review under a separate process and within the required timeframe. There is also no evidence of the Council having informed Mr X he could appeal under s.204 after the eight-week timeframe ended. We do expect councils to signpost applicants and service users to designated appeal rights where these exist.
8. When Mr X made his complaint to the Council, this clearly related to it having not found him as being in ‘priority need’, which is a condition for the Council having an obligation to secure him housing under the main housing duty. The Council’s stage one complaint response was sent to Mr X in October 2023. The response did not address Mr X’s complaint issues about him being in priority need on account of his health conditions. Instead, the response outlined Mr X’s complaint about these issues was not upheld. In my view, this amounted to a decision that Mr X was not in priority need, which carries a right of review. Around one month later, Mr X asked the Council for a review of that decision.
9. The Council dealt with the review request under its complaints procedure and sent Mr X a stage two response in June 2024. This response ought to have been the review decision and was issued four months later than it should have been. In any event, this now confirmed Mr X as being in priority need and owed the main housing duty. The Council also made Mr X an offer of temporary accommodation, pending permanent housing being secured. To its credit, the Council also offered to pay £275 to Mr X on account of the delays and poor service he had received. It would be appropriate, in my view, for the Council to make a further payment (see below) to Mr X to take account of him having not received a fair and timely review process, or being promptly advised of his appeal rights.

10. The Council told me Mr X has since moved into permanent housing under a settled social tenancy which began in early 2025. I note Mr X’s point that had the Council not delayed in deciding his request for a review, then he would have been awarded a duty and his homelessness relieved much sooner. We cannot, however, investigate this issue. This is because once the required timeframe of eight weeks to complete the review expired, Mr X had a right of appeal against the Council’s original response under s.204. The statutory appeal procedure is the process Parliament legislated for, with the expectation that applicants exercise that right of appeal. In my view, it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his appeal right. Given Mr X could therefore reasonably have taken court action about this issue, we have no jurisdiction to investigate. The restriction I outline at paragraph three (above) applies.

Back to top

Agreed action

11. The Council has accepted our invitation and agreed, within 7 days of this final decision statement, to pay Mr X £125.00 to account for him having not received a fair and timely review process, or being promptly advised of his appeal right.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has agreed to a suitable remedy and further investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. The restriction outlined at paragraph three (above) also applies.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman