Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X’s homelessness application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council decided he was not eligible for homelessness assistance and used harmful language in its decision letter.
2. Mr X said this caused his health to worsen and caused delays to his application.
3. He wants compensation for the damage he says he has been caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a Council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X’s complaint centres around a decision the Council made in February 2024. Mr X contacted the Ombudsman in June 2025, which is over 12 months ago. However, I have exercised discretion to consider his complaint because Mr X provided information about his health and housing situation which led me to consider it reasonable he did not come to us sooner.
9. Mr X is a foreign national but has indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Mr X is therefore able to reside in the UK indefinitely and is eligible to claim benefits in the UK, such as homelessness assistance from a Council.
10. The Council originally decided Mr X was not eligible for homelessness assistance because he did not have the correct legal immigration status.
11. Mr X’s MP made enquiries of the Home Office which confirmed Mr X had been granted indefinite leave to remain and so was eligible for housing assistance. Following receipt of this information, the Council accepted it owed Mr X the main homelessness duty.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council made its original decision based on information provided by Mr X and its understanding of his legal immigration status. Once it received new information, it upheld Mr X’s appeal and accepted it owed him a duty. There is not enough evidence of fault and in any case, further investigation would achieve nothing further.
13. Mr X is unhappy with the language used in the Council’s initial decision letter. However, this mirrored the language used in the relevant legislation and guidance. I do not consider there is enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant the Ombudsman’s involvement. However, if Mr X believes the Council has discriminated against him and wishes to be compensated, the courts are best placed to deal with matter.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman