Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision making to justify our involvement. Service failure about delay has been admitted by the Council and an apology has been issued. However, there is no fault in requiring a telephone or face to face assessment of needs to determine Mr X’s homeless status.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the handling of his homelessness application. He says the Council has failed to issue a decisoin on his homelessness and provide a personalised housing plan or accommdoation. He says that he has chronic illness and undertakes care responsibilities for his wife. Mr X states that he has a vulnerable family (4 children and wife).

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the Complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X submitted a homelessness application to the Council in November 2024 on behalf of himself and his family due to the anti-social behaviour of a neighbour. He also submitted a housing application. The application was incomplete, so the application was closed because he did not provide the required documentation. The Council called Mr X in November and conducted an initial interview. It told him it would need to complete a housing needs assessment interview in December. From November 2024 until June 2025, Mr X says he consistently chased his homelessness application.
6. The Housing team from the Council tried to call Mr X in March 2025 but otherwise the Council failed to respond or progress his homelessness application.
7. In June 2025 and again in July 2025, the Housing Officer emailed Mr X requesting a telephone call so that a Housing Needs Assessment could be conducted. The Housing Officer explained that the Housing Needs Assessment needed to be conducted via a telephone call. Mr X refused to have a telephone call.
8. Mr X escalated his complaint to a stage 1 complaint on 22 July 2025. The stage 1 complaint was upheld on 12 August 2025. The stage 1 complaint response set out that there was a service failure from November 2024 until June 2025 due to the lack of communication from the Council’s Housing team. The stage 1 response contained a formal apology and explained that a Housing Needs Assessment will need to be completed by having a verbal conversation.
9. Mr X asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 based on the same complaint and one additional complaint. The additional complaint was to award Mr X Band A housing.
10. The stage 2 complaint was not upheld. The response set out that a formal apology had been issued in the stage 1 complaint response and that a Housing Needs Assessment needed to be completed by telephone or face to face in order for Mr X’s housing needs to be properly determined. This is in line with the Homelessness Code of Guidance at paragraph 11.14. It is unlikely that an investigation would find fault with the Council and so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
11. As an apology has been issued to Mr X and the evidence shows that the Council has explained to Mr X that a Housing Needs Assessment is required via telephone in order to progress with his application. The Council has explained to Mr X that reasonable adjustments could be provided during the telephone conversation. We cannot find fault with a Council’s operational model and so it is unlikely that an investigation would find fault with the Council’s decision making.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision making to justify our involvement. Service failure has been admitted by the Council and an apology has been issued. It is unlikely that an investigation would find fault on the issue of the housing needs assessment which is a requirement of the homelessness procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman