Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness and housing applications. Mr X had a right of appeal to court about the Council’s decision on his homelessness and there is no good reason he could not have used it. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the Council’s decision about Mr X’s priority on its housing register.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. He says the Council discriminated against him when it decided he was not in priority need, refused to take a new homeless application from him, and delayed adding him to the housing register.
2. Mr X says that as a result he remains homeless and cannot properly care for his children. He wants the Council to reconsider his case and provide him with accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X approached the Council for help in early 2025. The Council accepted the relief duty because it was satisfied Mr X was homeless. But it also notified him that it was satisfied he was not in priority need and so would have no duty to provide him with accommodation. Mr X asked for a review of this decision. The Council completed the review and maintained its decision that Mr X was not in priority need.
8. Mr X had a statutory right to appeal to the county court about the Council’s decision that he was not in priority need. The restriction in paragraph three therefore applies. There is no good reason Mr X could not have used this right of appeal and so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
9. The Council refused to accept a new homeless application from Mr X. The Council can refuse to accept a new application if there are no new facts since it made its decision. It is unlikely any investigation would find fault with the Council’s decision making and so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
10. Mr X says the Council took too long to add him to the housing register. The evidence shows the Council told Mr X it needed further information from him before it could assess his application. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the Council and so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
11. The Council awarded Mr X band 3 priority on the housing register. Mr X used his right of review of this decision and provided further evidence about his health. The review decision explained, with reference to the Council’s published allocations scheme, why band 3 was the correct priority for his circumstances. It demonstrated how it considered the additional evidence Mr X provided. We cannot find fault with a decision if the Council made the decision properly. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the Council’s application of its allocations scheme to Mr X’s case and so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he could have appealed to court about the homelessness decision and it is unlikely an investigation would find fault on the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman