Summary: Mr D complains about how the Council assessed his homelessness application and says it failed to support him. I have decided to end the investigation because we cannot achieve the outcomes sought by Mr D and he has the right to pursue his case with the court.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) complains about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application during 2024 and 2025. Mr D says the Council failed to offer interim accommodation and was wrong to decide his household was not in priority need. He says there was a lack of support from the Council, and it did not act as guarantor for a private rental property.

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:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

3. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr D as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr D and his partner approached the Council for homelessness assistance in March 2024. In December the Council decided the household did not have priority need which meant it did not have to offer Mr D interim accommodation. The Council advised Mr D of his right to request a review of the decision, and he exercised that right. The Council issued its review decision in March 2025 and upheld that the household was not in priority need. Mr D complained to the Council in April about it failing to provide assistance and prevent his homelessness. The Council did not uphold the complaint and issued its final stage reply in May. It advised Mr D that if he wanted to contest the decision about priority need and the duty to offer interim accommodation he could go to court.
8. In his complaint to the Ombudsman Mr D stated the outcomes he was seeking as a result of an investigation. I have considered those and decided that we should end the investigation because we cannot achieve the outcomes sought by Mr D.
9. Mr D wants the Council to provide interim accommodation. That is not something we can achieve for him. The Council only has a duty to provide interim accommodation where it finds a homelessness applicant is in priority need. The Council has carried out a review of that priority need decision and correctly notified Mr D that if he wishes to challenge the decision further, he will need to progress the case to court. In such matters the Ombudsman considers it reasonable for homelessness applicants to use their right to go to court.
10. Mr D wants an independent review of his case including the medical evidence which he believes show his household should be classed as in priority need. As above, that is not a decision we can make. It is not for the Ombudsman to assess medical evidence or to decide if a person is in priority need. Those are decisions for the Council and are challengeable in court.
11. Mr D also refers to seeking compensation for deterioration in his household’s health. That is not something the Ombudsman can consider. Mr D is alleging negligence by the Council which has impacted on his household’s health and that is a matter for the court to assess.
12. Given we cannot achieve the main outcomes sought by Mr D and he has the right to pursue his case in court I have decided we should end the investigation.

Back to top

Decision

13. I have ended the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman