Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application from November 2023 because there is insufficient injustice caused to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had not assisted him with his homelessness since November 2023. He said this meant he and his family remained in unsuitable accommodation.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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))

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 first approached the Council in November 2023 after his landlord served him with a notice to leave his private rented sector accommodation. Council records show it had some difficulty contacting Mr X on the telephone number he gave them, so it did not carry out a homelessness assessment until April 2024. At that point, it accepted a relief duty and issued a personalised housing plan (PHP). It also contacted the landlord, who said they were not pursuing the eviction, but would support the family to secure social housing. Therefore, any delay in carrying out a homelessness assessment did not cause sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
6. The relief duty usually lasts 56 days, so I would have expected the Council to write to Mr X ending the duty in June 2024. It did not do so until December 2024, but this did not cause Mr X an injustice because it simply meant it kept his case open longer than it needed to do. Mr X had rights of review and appeal if he disagreed with the decision to end the relief duty. It was reasonable for him to ask for a review, but I understand he did not do so.
7. Mr X and his wife separated, and Mr X made a fresh homelessness application in January 2025. By that stage, the landlord had serviced another notice for Mr X to leave the private rented sector accommodation and had obtained a possession order that required Mr X to leave by 28 March 2025. The Council did not carry out a homelessness assessment until 13 March when it accepted a relief duty, issued a PHP and arranged interim accommodation for Mr X. Although the delay may have caused Mr X some worry and there is some uncertainty about whether things would have been different if the Council had acted more quickly, the Council did arrange accommodation for him before the day he was required to leave. On that basis, there is insufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
8. For the reasons set out above, we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman