Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about issues arising from the Council’s decision on Mr X’s homelessness application. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to challenge the Council’s decision to end relief duty in the County Court.

The complaint

1. In short, Mr X complains that the Council has failed to provide him with appropriate services while he has been suffering a housing crisis. Mr X says his medical conditions have been exacerbated because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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:

• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. In October 2024 the Council assessed Mr X’s homelessness application and accepted a relief duty.
8. The Council ended its relief duty towards Mr X in March 2025. It advised him of his statutory rights of review. Mr X appealed against the Council’s decision.
9. The Council considered Mr X’s appeal in May 2025. It wrote to Mr X explaining its reasons for ending the relief duty and why his application was not eligible for priority need status. It advised him that if he disagreed, he had an appeal to the County Court under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996.
10. Mr X complains now to the Ombudsman by saying the Council did not provide him with sufficient housing assistance. He also criticises the Council’s Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) assessment document.
11. We will not investigate. This is because I consider it was reasonable for Mr X to go to court with his concerns about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. This is the established route for complainants dissatisfied with homelessness decision especially in view of Mr X’s contention that his medical needs have not been adequately considered by the Council. Only a court can quash the Council’s decision.
12. I do not consider we should separate out a complaint about the personalised housing plan in isolation as I do not see any worthwhile outcome achievable. I note the Council appears to have answered Mr X’s concerns about the PHP in a complaint response (dated March 2025). The Council explains it does not have resources to contact private estate agencies on Mr X’s behalf. Also, that Mr X was not eligible for bidding on the choice-based allocations scheme due to rent arrears in accordance with the Council’s allocations policy.
13. I note the Council’s complaint response ends by confirming that Mr X wished to withdraw his complaint after contact had been made by a Council officer. If Mr X disagrees that he withdrew this complaint - that he is now raising to the Ombudsman - as outlined in paragraph four, the Ombudsman expects Mr X to raise this with the Council before we can consider. This is another reason for us not to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate as it was reasonable for Mr X to challenge the Council’s decision on his homelessness application in the County Court. And there is no worthwhile outcome achievable on the remaining matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman