Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness Relief duty. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his right to have a review of the decision and he has further rights of appeal to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council ending its relief homelessness duty without securing accommodation for him or helping him to find his own rented accommodation through rent assistance. As a result, he says he had no address and is staying in the former building he was evicted from.

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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s review of its homelessness decision.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X approached the Council as homeless and in April 2025 the Council accepted him under the Relief Homelessness duty. He was given a personalised housing plan and advised about private sector renting because he is a single applicant. No interim accommodation duty was identified.
7. Mr X says that the Council told him he had a budget of £1600 per calendar month available to use for renting. The Council says it does not have a ceiling for how much housing assistance an applicant may receive as this varies according to the applicant’s circumstances and the benefits cap on this assistance.
8. Mr X says he found a suitable rented property but the Council would not agree to benefit payments to cover the rent because it considered he would not be able to afford to maintain the tenancy on his benefits related income. In June the 56 days relief Duty expired and Mr X became homeless with no assistance. He asked for a review of the decision to end the homeless duty under s.202 of the housing Act 1996.
9. The Council issued the review decision in August and it upheld the original decision to end the duty. The decision letter included details about his right to appeal the outcome to the County Court within 21 days. Mr X was also advised to seek assistance from a local law centre by a councillor to whom he made a compalint.
10. We cannot overturn a council’s decision on a homelessness application. the legislation provides a review and appeal procedure and Mr X has engaged with this. It was reasonable for him to appeal the review decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness Relief duty. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his right to have a review of the decision and he has further rights of appeal to the County Court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman