Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s housing register decision because it is reasonable for the Council to review it. We will not investigate his complaint about its handling of his homelessness application because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
• asked him to attend a meeting in person to discuss his housing situation, which was a 60-mile round trip, and has not agreed to pay his travel costs;
• advised him in the meeting that he was not eligible to join its housing register because he owned his own property. This was despite the Council having accepted he was legally homeless because he was living in a one-bedroom flat with two children
• did not issue a written decision.
2. Mr X said the Council’s failings caused him and his children emotional distress.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

6. In April 2025, one of Mr X’s children came to live with him in his one-bedroom flat. He contacted the Council for homelessness assistance and applied to join its housing register. After an initial assessment, the Council decided he was not homeless. Mr X asked for a review of that decision. At review, the Council said it was “minded to” uphold the original decision. However, before it made the review decision, another of Mr X’s children came to live with him, so the “not homeless” decision was withdrawn.
7. The Council asked Mr X to meet with it to carry out a further homelessness assessment and discuss his housing options. Early in that meeting, it advised him he would not be eligible to join its housing register because he was a homeowner and explained where it said that in its published allocations scheme. Mr X was unhappy with that advice and the meeting ended early.
8. In an email the following month, the Council set out the possible housing options, which depended on whether one of Mr X’s children needed to remain at their current school or whether they could move to another school in Council B’s area, where Mr X lives. It explained that, even if it accepted a homelessness duty, it could discharge this by finding him private rented sector accommodation and that he was not entitled to social housing through its housing register.
9. In the event, the Council made a referral to Council B, which is where he had a local connection, and Council B accepted that referral.
10. Mr X made a fresh housing register application in November 2025. The Council said he was not eligible to join the housing register because he did not meet the local connection criteria. Mr X has asked for a review of that decision, which is ongoing.

My assessment

11. The Council’s published allocations scheme does state that, where a person owns, or part owns, a property, they will not usually be included on the housing register. I note the Council gave this advice orally and later confirmed it in writing. It appears not to have issued a decision with review rights at that stage. However, this did not cause Mr X a sufficient injustice to justify further investigation because there were other reasons he was not eligible.
12. The Council later decided the local connection criteria was not met, and that decision is currently under review. It is appropriate for that review to be concluded. If, on review, the Council decides Mr X is eligible to join its housing register, I would expect it to back-date his application to the date he first applied, which would remedy any delay in making that decision. There is nothing more we could achieve by investigating further.
13. In relation to the homelessness application, the Council initially decided Mr X was not homeless. By the time of the review, his circumstances had changed so the Council changed its position. Whilst it accepted that he was then legally homeless, it said he did not have a local connection to its area, so it made a referral to Council B, which was accepted. The Council’s advice that it could end a homelessness duty by identifying suitable private rented sector accommodation was correct. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the homelessness application to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s housing register decision because it is reasonable for the Council to carry out a review. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about its handling of his homelessness application because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman