Summary: Mr F complained about the way the Council dealt with his homeless application. We have ended our investigation. This is because Mr F has appealed to the Court about the Council’s decision, which means we cannot investigate.

The complaint

1. Mr F complained about the way the Council dealt with his homeless application. In particular he complained the Council:
1. Failed to act on or acknowledge his disclosure of domestic violence and issues relating to his sexual orientation and did not signpost him to support.
2. Was aggressive in a phone call with him after he had disclosed feeling suicidal.
3. Did not provide interim accommodation when he came out of hospital, leading to him sleeping in his car, haemorrhaging and having to be re-admitted.
2. This has caused him trauma and a significant deterioration of 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

4. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended)
6. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
7. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
8. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. I have ended my investigation into Mr F’s complaint. I have set out the reasons for this in the rest of this statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I spoke to Mr F about his complaint and considered the information he and the Council sent.
11. Mr F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness law and guidance

12. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
13. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation, or help to get accommodation, and gives reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
14. Whilst making these inquiries, a council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188).
15. Applicants in priority need may include people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or if they are homeless as a result of domestic abuse.
16. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. These steps should follow an assessment and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. This is the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
17. If the person becomes homeless, the Council must help to secure suitable accommodation if it is satisfied that an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance. (Housing Act 1996, section189B) This is the relief duty.
18. The relief duty requires an authority to “take reasonable steps” to help the applicant to secure suitable accommodation which is available for occupation for at least six months. “Help to secure” does not mean that the authority has to source and provide accommodation, but that it should try to agree reasonable steps for itself and the applicant which could result in accommodation being found. The relief duty usually ends 56 days after the council became subject to the duty, even if the applicant has not found accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section189B(7)(c))

Review rights

19. A person has a right to request a review of a decision about what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness. This includes the council’s decision whether the person is in priority need. Applicants may request a review of the decision within 21 days. It is often known as a “section 202 review”. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
20. The council usually has eight weeks to issue its decision on a section 202 review.
21. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))
22. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal the outcome of the review to the county court on a point of law. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction

23. Normally we would not investigate complaints about decisions where review and appeal rights apply, provided we are satisfied the council told the complainant about their right to ask for a review and then appeal.
24. As set out in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 above, if the complainant has obtained an opinion from a legal professional and has applied to county court about the matter, we cannot investigate.

What happened

25. I have set out the key events. This is not meant to detail everything that happened.
26. Mr F approached the Council on 18 March 2025. He said he was being evicted and would be homeless from 14 April. Mr F said his two children stayed with him three nights a week. On 1 April the Council told Mr F it would not include his children in his application as they were already housed. It did not consider Mr F was in priority need.
27. Mr F emailed the Council on 9 April with more information about his situation. He said he had disclosed his sexuality to those he lived with and had been met with hostility and conflict. Mr F had contacted an LGBTQ+ support group and a mental health support group.
28. The Council decided Mr F was not in priority need and therefore would not be placed in interim accommodation. The Council accepted the relief duty and issued a personalised housing plan on 14 April which said Mr F should look for private rented accommodation, the Council could help with a deposit.
29. Mr F sent further information about his medical needs. On 28 April he emailed the Council saying he had been assaulted by a family member, had been suicidal and that he required surgery. There was a phone call between Mr F and the Council that day. The Council said it would send the medical information to the independent medical advisor. Mr F also requested a review of the decision that he was not in priority need.
30. Mr F complained about the phone call. He said the officer had shouted, talked over him and dismissed his concerns.
31. The Council emailed him on 6 May saying it would pass his case to the independent reviewer to carry out a section 202 review. To do so it required his consent. Mr F provided that consent on 10 June.
32. On 8 May, Mr F’s MP told the Council that Mr F was due to have day surgery and would need two weeks to recover.
33. The Council replied to Mr F’s complaint on 21 May. It said it had listened to the call and did not consider the officer had shouted but a new officer would be allocated.
34. On 6 June, the Council spoke to a charity supporting Mr F with his mental health. The worker said Mr F was due to have surgery on 9 June. The Council said this did not affect its decision that he was not in priority need. The Council could refer him to a hostel though Mr F had previously declined that as not suitable. The Council tried to call Mr F but could not get through.
35. Mr F says after he left hospital on 9 June he slept in his car and started to haemorrhage. He had to be readmitted to hospital.
36. The Council spoke to Mr F on 13 June, he was being discharged from hospital that day and would stay with a family member. The Council said it would arrange interim accommodation from 16 June pending the outcome of the section 202 review of the “not in priority need” decision. It referred him to a domestic abuse charity.
37. The Council met Mr F on 23 June and sent further responses to his complaint on 27 June, 7 July and 22 July. It accepted it had not referred Mr F to domestic abuse charities in April or LGBTQ+ support services in June.
38. Mr F’s solicitor contacted the Council. A section 202 review decision was issued on 10 December that Mr F was not in priority need. On 17 December the solicitor told the Council they were submitting an appeal to the Court.

My findings

39. I have ended my investigation.
40. Mr F complained the Council did not take into account his disclosure of domestic abuse. If a person is homeless due to domestic abuse they are in priority need. As set out in paragraph 24, I cannot investigate the Council’s decision that Mr F was not in priority need as he has gone to court about it.
41. Mr F also said the section 202 review had been delayed. This is an issue the Court can consider, so in line with paragraph 7, I cannot investigate.
42. Mr F complained the Council did not act on the issues he raised in relation to LGBTQ+. The Council could have signposted him or referred him to support services in April 2025. Mr F had already contacted one LGBTQ+ support service by 9 April so even if there was fault, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. I am therefore exercising my discretion not to investigate this element as set out in paragraphs 3 and 4.
43. Mr F says he has not had sufficient redress for the distressing phone call with the Council on 28 April. The Council changed Mr F’s housing officer but it did not accept fault. I cannot now listen to the call so I cannot add to the Council’s previous investigation. I am therefore exercising my discretion, as set out in paragraphs 3 and 4, not to investigate this further.
44. I have looked at the case records in relation to what happened when Mr F came out of hospital. The Council is not required to house a homeless person who has been in hospital, it depends whether it decides the person is in priority need. I cannot investigate whether the Council should have decided Mr F was in priority need. So I cannot investigate whether the Council should have provided interim accommodation on 9 June.
45. The Council agreed to provide interim accommodation pending the outcome of the section 202 review, which started after Mr F gave consent on 10 June. The accommodation was provided on 16 June. Mr F was in hospital from 10 to 13 June and at a family member’s from 13 to 15 June. So there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, as set out in paragraphs 3 and 4.

Back to top

Decision

46. I have ended my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman