Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the Council’s decision the property offered to Mr X to end his homelessness was suitable. The Council has already offered a suitable remedy for other matters and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything further.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained for himself and his parent about the Council’s handling of their homelessness. In particular, that the Council:
• refused to treat his parent as part of his application;
• ended its duty because it said they refused a suitable offer when the property was not suitable; and
• lacked empathy and understanding in its handling of the property offer.
2. As a result, Mr X says he and his parent experienced avoidable distress and financial loss.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X and his parent were homeless. In late 2024, the Council offered them a property to end its duty. The Council told Mr X if he did not accept the offer, it would consider he had refused it and end its duty. It later did so.
9. Mr X used his statutory right to review this decision. The Council’s review said the property was suitable. We will not investigate this part of the complaint. Mr X provided evidence that he tried and was unable to get legal support to use his right of appeal. This is a good reason he could not use his alternative remedy and so for us to exercise discretion to consider it. But where a council makes a decision properly, we cannot question the outcome. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault in how the Council made its decision.
10. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council accepted fault for its handling of Mr X’s request to include his parent as part of his homeless application. It also accepted fault for its communication with Mr X and his parent. It said although its decisions were correct, it should have shown more empathy and understanding given Mr X and his parent’s disabilities.
11. The Council offered Mr X £5,000 as a remedy for the injustice caused. This is more than we would recommend if we were to investigate and uphold the complaint. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because it would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because its unlikely an investigation would find fault with the Council’s decision about suitability. An investigation would not achieve anything further than the Council has already offered on the other matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman