Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. There is not enough evidence of fault and it was reasonable for him to use his right of appeal to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. He says the Council failed to properly assess his circumstances, provide a personalised housing plan or arrange suitable temporary accommodation for him. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaints.
2. Mr X says he has been homeless for over a year which has severely affected him. He wants the Council to carry out a proper assessment of his circumstances and provide him suitable temporary accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. The County Court deals with appeals about homelessness decisions.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. In late 2024, Mr X made a homelessness application. The Council accepted that it owed him a relief non-priority need duty.
10. For non-priority homeless applicants, councils are not required to provide long-term accommodation. However, they must still provide advice, assistance and help to prevent or relieve homelessness within 56 days.
11. The evidence I have seen shows the Council:
• referred Mr X to its private rented sector team to identify a property to relieve his homelessness;
• conducted an affordability assessment;
• referred him to supported housing providers;
• arranged emergency accommodation for one night under its severe weather emergency protocol;
• completed a personal housing plan; and
• offered him accommodation.
12. I am satisfied the Council took appropriate action under its non-priority relief duties and took steps to assist relieve Mr X’s homelessness within 56 days. There is not enough evidence of fault on this point to justify us investigating.

Non-priority homeless decision

13. In January 2025, the Council decided Mr X was homeless but not in priority need and ended its relief duty. Mr X then appealed the Council’s decision. The Council upheld its decision on appeal.
14. I recognise there was a delay in the Council completing its review. The Council has apologised to Mr X for this. Now the review decision is complete an investigation by us is unlikely to achieve anymore in respect of the delay.
15. If Mr X disagrees with the Council’s non-priority homeless decision, then he could have appealed to the County Court. The County Court is the appropriate body to consider appeals about non-priority homeless decisions. I see no evidence to suggest it would have been unreasonable for him to appeal. Therefore, as the exclusion in paragraph 5 says, I will not investigate this aspect of his complaint.

Complaint handling

16. I also recognise there was a delay in the Council’s handling of his complaints. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. As we are not investigating the substantive issue about the Council’s decision, then I will not investigate the complaint handling alone.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault on one part and it was reasonable for him to use his right of appeal. It is also not a good use of public resources to investigate the complaint handling alone.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman