Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homeless application and for not supporting him with his homelessness. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his homeless application. He says the Council failed to help him with his homelessness.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X first approached the Council as homeless at the end of September 2024. A housing officer called Mr X and spoke to him about his application.
6. The Council’s case notes detailed:
• Mr X told the officer he had been living in a different council’s area for 11 years. Mr X also confirmed he worked in that area.
• Mr X left his previous property due to a relationship breakdown.
• Mr X wanted to live in the other council’s area, but thought he had to apply to Lewes Council as he was rough sleeping in its area.
• The officer advised Mr X to apply to the other council.
• The officer discussed with Mr X a streetlink referral, but that Mr X declined as he was already in contact with them.
7. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed it did not make a referral to the other council as PA had confirmed he would call that council directly and because Mr X noted the rough sleepers team would complete a referral as well. The Council also confirmed it did not refuse to complete a homeless assessment, but that it was Mr X choice not to pursue his application further.
8. An investigation is not proportionate because we are not likely to find fault with the Council’s actions. This is because the evidence shows Mr X had indicated to the Council he wanted to apply to another council and suggested he would do so. Therefore, it was reasonable for the Council to have assumed Mr X no longer wished to pursue his homeless application with it and to not make any further enquiries.
9. Further, there is no evidence Mr X has contacted the Council to advise he wishes to pursue his homeless application with it. It is open to Mr X to do so now if he wishes to pursue his application.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman