Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr X’s homelessness application. Mr X had the right to seek a review of homelessness decisions, and then to appeal to the county court on a point of law. We consider it reasonable for him to have used this right. We will not investigate the rest of Mr X’s complaint about accommodation offered to him under the Council’s social housing allocation scheme. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, or a significant enough injustice, to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly consider its homelessness duties to him, and offered him unsuitable accommodation, after he made a homelessness application in 2024. He also says the Council was dismissive of his complaint and its actions caused him to question whether it treated him differently based on a protected characteristic.
2. Because of this Mr X says he continued to live in unsuitable accommodation. This affected his mental health and caused problems at work and a breakdown of his relationship.
3. Mr X wants to Council to provide him with suitable accommodation and recognise the distress its actions caused him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers, and relevant legislation

4. 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:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

5. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188). Examples of applicants in priority need are people with dependent children, and people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.
6. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of:

• their eligibility for homelessness assistance; and
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness.

7. Following the Council’s review, applicants then have a right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)
8. 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)
9. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14)). The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application, or for failing to rehouse someone, if it has followed its published allocations scheme.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

12. Mr X made a housing application to the Council because he said his accommodation was no longer suitable for him. The Council decided based on the evidence available to it that Mr X was not in priority need, so it did not owe him an accommodation duty. Mr X had the right to seek a review of this decision, and then to appeal to the county court on a point of law. I do not consider it unreasonable to expect Mr X to have sought a review and then appeal to court. Therefore we will not investigate a complaint about it.
13. Although the Council decided it did not owe Mr X a homeless accommodation duty, it offered a studio apartment to rent within social housing. Mr X refused this offer. He said it was unsuitable because the building was also used as supported accommodation for homeless people with complex needs, such as mental health problems and substance dependency. The Council then offered him support to seek private rental accommodation but said this would cost him more. Mr X said he could not afford this. I understand Mr X is unhappy with the housing options the Council offered him. However, the Council has explained the offers it made to Mr X under its allocations scheme. There is not enough evidence we would find fault with the Council’s actions if we were to investigate.
14. Mr X also says the Council delayed in considering his housing application. However, once the Council considered this and offered Mr X social housing, he refused the offer, and remains in the same accommodation. Therefore, even if there were delays, and the Council should have considered it sooner, it did not change anything in terms of Mr X’s housing situation. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of a significant enough injustice for us to investigate any possible delay.
15. Mr X says the Council was dismissive of his complaint and its actions caused him to question whether it treated him differently based on a protected characteristic. The Council responded to all the issues Mr X raised in his complaint. There is not enough evidence we would find fault with how the Council responded to the complaint if we were to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had the right to seek a review of homelessness decisions, and then to appeal to the county court on a point of law. We consider it reasonable for him to have used this right. We will not investigate the rest of Mr X’s complaint about accommodation offered to him under the Council’s social housing allocation scheme. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, or a significant enough injustice, to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman