Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the outcome of Mr X’s homeless application. This is because Mr X had an appeal right, and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use this appeal right to the County Courts. Nor will we look at the remainder of Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had incorrectly assessed his homeless complaint. He also complained about the Council’s complaint handling, which included:
1. Lack of communication following notification of impending homelessness;
2. requests for medical and other documentation coming too late in the process;
3. withdrawal of a promised face-to-face appointment without notice, and
4. concerns about staff conduct and professionalism.
2. Mrs X said this caused him distress and worsened his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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 and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In March 2025, Mr X made a homeless application to the Council. The Council assessed him and decided he was not in priority need of housing and so was not eligible for interim accommodation. Mr X requested a statutory review of the decision. In June 2025, the review had occurred and a decision that Mr X was not in priority need of housing was issued. The Council set out how he could appeal to the courts if he disputed that decision.
9. Mr X is disputing Council’s grounds for rejecting his homeless application and seeking for decision to be overturned. The County Courts consider appeals about a decision to refuse homeless application if the complainant believes the decision is wrong in the law.
10. If Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s handling of his homeless application and its decision to decide he was not in priority need, it would have been reasonable for him to use his right of appeal. In any case, we cannot overturn the Council’s decision here.
11. In relation to the remainder of Mr X’s complaints, relating to how it provides a service, the Council upheld Mr X’s complaint and apologised. It set out how it would improve its service affecting people in Mr X’s circumstances.
12. Given the Council’s responses here, we will not investigate because further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We cannot investigate the outcome of Mr X’s homeless application because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the County Courts. Nor will we investigate the remaining matters as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman