Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homeless and housing case. He says the Council failed to properly consider his medical evidence and failed to offer him any accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his homeless and housing case. He says:
• The Council failed to properly consider the medical evidence he provided to show his need for a two-bedroom property.
• The Council failed to offer him any accommodation.
• The Council’s actions violate the public sector equality duty.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In December 2024, Mr X approached the Council for support and the Council opened a homeless case.
7. The Council completed a housing assessment in January 2025 and accepted the prevention duty. The Council completed a personalised housing plan (PHP) detailing the support the Council would provide, and the actions Mr X needed to complete.
8. Mr X asked the Council to clarify if it was looking for one or two bedroom properties for him. Mr X requests for two bedroom properties as a reasonable adjustment for his medical conditions. He says a second bedroom would allow a carer, friend, or relative, to stay overnight when his medical conditions gets worse.
9. The Council confirmed Mr X was only eligible for one bedroom housing rate and so would only be offered one-bedroom properties. However, the Council said it could financially support Mr X to secure a two-bedroom property if he self-sourced properties below £1000 a month.
10. Mr X provided medical evidence to support his request for eligibility for two-bedroom properties. The Council considered the evidence but determined it was not sufficient for Mr X to be considered for a two-bedroom need. The officer explained the evidence Mr X submitted did not include confirmation from a relevant professional indicating a need for regular overnight care or additional room for medical equipment.
11. The officer also explained to Mr X that because he was not happy with one-bedroom properties, he had not been put forward for any properties. However, if Mr X wished to be considered, to let them know. There is no evidence Mr X asked the Council to put him forward for one-bedroom properties. Therefore, we are not likely to find fault with the Council for not offering Mr X any properties while his homeless case was open.
12. In March 2025, the Council accepted the relief duty.
13. In May 2025, Mr X asked the Council to withdraw his homeless application as he was unhappy with the support being provided. The Council issued Mr X a letter detailing the end of the relief duty and Mr X right to request a review.
14. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault with the Council’s actions. The Council’s handling of Mr X’s homeless case was in line with the code of guidance as the Council appropriately accepted the prevention and relief duty. The Council ended its duty following Mr X’s request to withdraw his application and appropriately notified Mr X of his review rights.
15. The officer is allowed to exercise their professional judgment if they have properly considered the evidence. In this case, the officer determined the evidence provided was not sufficient to support a need for two-bedroom and provided their rationale for the decision. The officer further explained to Mr X what evidence he would need to provide to support his request. Therefore, we are not likely to find fault as the Council has properly considered the matter and made its decision properly.
16. Finally, I note that Mr X feels the Council’s actions did not meet the Council’s public sector equality duty (PSED). However, as there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homeless and housing case, we are not likely to reach any finding that the Council failed to have due regard to the PSED.

Back to top

Final decision

17. 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