Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its duty to provide interim accommodation for him because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement. We will not investigate its decision he is intentionally homeless because he has review and appeal rights and it is reasonable for him to exercise those rights.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not arrange emergency accommodation for him after he became homeless, despite him being vulnerable. Mr X says that, as a result of Council failings, he has had to sleep in his car and fund hotel rooms himself.

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
• 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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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 Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. Mr X asked for help with his homelessness in November 2024. The Council arranged in a bed and breakfast accommodation because it agreed he was vulnerable. Mr X signed a licence to confirm he understood the behaviour rules for the bed and breakfast accommodation. The accommodation provider contacted the Council after a few days to say Mr X was helping himself to breakfast, even though it had explained he was not entitled to this. It said Mr X had been rude to staff when this was pointed out. Mr X continued to help himself to breakfast despite being told not to do so and was rude and aggressive to staff on a further occasion, following which the accommodation provider said he could not stay there. The Council spoke to Mr X and the provider about the situation. After considering the situation, it decided to end its duty to arrange interim accommodation. It made a record of the factors it had considered and wrote to Mr X to explain its reasons.
8. The Council still owed Mr X a relief duty. It referred Mr X for support from its rough sleeper’s team and tried to help him find long term accommodation. Mr X said he found it difficult to talk to multiple officers, so the Council arranged for a single point of contact, officer 1, so he only needed to speak to one person. The Council told me officer Y was in regular contact with Mr X, meeting him every week. The Council also arranged accommodation under the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP) when the weather was poor, a total of 15 nights between January and March 2025.
9. In early March 2025, the Council decided Mr X was intentionally homeless and wrote to him to explain its reasons. It explained he had the right to ask for a review of that decision, which he has done.

My assessment

10. The Council arranged bed and breakfast accommodation for Mr X when he first contacted it. When the provider asked him to leave, the Council considered whether to end its interim accommodation duty or arrange alternative interim accommodation for him. Its record shoes it spoke to Mr X and the provider and considered all relevant factors before deciding to end the duty. Unless there is fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process in this case to justify further investigation.
11. The Council later decided Mr X was intentionally homeless. Mr X has a right of review, and he is exercising this. If he disagrees with the review decision, he will have the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. It is reasonable for him to exercise his rights of review and appeal. On that basis, we will not investigate any complaint about the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its interim accommodation duty because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making process to justify our involvement. We will not investigate the Council’s decision he is intentionally homeless because Mr X had rights of review and appeal and its is reasonable for him to exercise these.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman