City of Wolverhampton Council (24 022 302)
Category : Housing > Homelessness
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 10 Jun 2025
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that he does not have a priority need for accommodation. This is because it was reasonable for him to have appealed to the county court.
The complaint
- Mr X complains about the Council’s decision that he does not have a priority need for accommodation. He says the Council did not properly consider his mental health conditions and the impact it has on his life.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mr X made a homeless application. In December 2024, the Council wrote to Mr X to confirm its relief duty had ended and that no further duty was owed as the Council had decided Mr X did not have a priority need for accommodation. Mr X asked the Council to review this decision.
- The Council completed its review in February 2025. The Council upheld the decision that Mr X did not have a priority need for accommodation. The Council found Mr X would not be considered more vulnerable than the ordinary person should he become homeless despite having mental health conditions.
- The Council appropriately notified Mr X of his right to appeal the decision if he considered the Council made a legal mistake when making the decision.
- I am satisfied it was reasonable for Mr X to have used his right of appeal. Therefore, I will not exercise discretion to consider the complaint.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to have appealed to the county court.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman