Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions on a homelessness application. It is reasonable for the complainant to use the review/appeal procedure provided by the homelessness legislation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide him with interim accommodation following a decision that he was non-priority homeless being overturned on review. He says he should be provided with accommodation and accepted as vulnerable under the Main housing 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 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))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied to the Council as homeless in December 2024. The Council accepted him under the homelessness relief duty but did not offer him interim accommodation even though he claimed that he was a vulnerable person. He challenged the Council’s non-priority homeless decision by seeking a review under s.202 of the Housing Act 196 Part 7.
7. The review quashed the decision that he was non-priority homeless and told him that his application would be re-assessed. The review concluded that whilst the original decision was to be quashed the Council may still reach the decision that he was non-priority following a re-assessment. Because the Council did not provide accommodation for him during the re-assessment Mr X made a formal compalint to the Council. He also said that he disagreed with the Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) issued by the Council under the Relief duty.
8. We made some enquiries of the Council and it sent us a response following the formal complaint. The Council says that it still does not believe that Mr X is a vulnerable person or that he should be provided with interim accommodation. The Council is due to issue a new s.184 non-priority decision and says that he will be able to challenge it and the PHP under s.202.
9. We cannot overturn a council’s decision on a homelessness application. Whilst it will be frustrating for Mr X to have to use the review /appeal procedure again if he wishes to challenge the Council’s decision on his priority this is the course of action provided by the homelessness legislation and it is reasonable for him to use it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions on a homelessness application. It is reasonable for the complainant to use the review/appeal procedure provided by the homelessness legislation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman