Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Mr X was not in priority need for housing. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to ask the Council for a review of its decision under homelessness legislation. Additionally, we will not investigate Mr X’s remaining complaint about the Council’s delay in offering interim accommodation. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision he is not in priority need for housing. Mr X also complained about the Council's delay in providing interim accommodation.
2. Mr X said this decision means he is forced into accommodation which will have a negative impact on his mental health.

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
• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained the Council delayed in providing him with interim accommodation. Mr X said the Council ignored his many requests for interim accommodation and did not consider his medical need for this.
7. The Council said Mr X did not meet the threshold for being vulnerable on medical grounds, but they were carrying out further enquiries. It also said, though Mr X asked for interim accommodation, he said he could remain in his current accommodation. The Council said when Mr X’s current accommodation was no longer sustainable, it offered interim accommodation.
8. Based on the available evidence, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to offer interim accommodation sooner. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint.
9. Mr X also complained about the Council’s decision he is not in priority need for housing. The Council formally informed Mr X of its decision in June 2025 and provided clear reasoning for its decision. The Council also told Mr X about his right to request a review of this decision, as outlined in section 202 of the Housing Act 1996.
10. It was reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right of review because the Council told him about this right in its decision letter. The Council also reminded Mr X of his right of review in its stage two complaint response. Mr X would have then had a right of appeal to the court on a point of law, if there was an error in the Council’s review decision.
11. We cannot overturn the Council’s decision, and it was reasonable for Mr X to have challenged the decision using the review procedure. For this reason, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to ask the Council for a review of its decision and there is not enough evidence to warrant our involvement relating to providing accommodation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman