Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness application. This is because the Council upheld his complaint about poor communication and apologised to him. Mr X also had the right to ask for a review of the Council’s decision and it was reasonable for him to exercise that right.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to reply to his emails, delayed his homelessness application and continued to refer him to a different council.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or

(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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X originally had support from a different Council (Council X) which housed him out of Borough in this Council in a studio flat in November 2024.
6. Mr X’s wife and children joined him in May 2025 and he wrote to the Council asking to be moved to a suitable property.
7. As this was still within the 2 years placement by Council X the Council informed him Council X still retains duty for him.
8. In its complaint response the Council upheld the lack of communication and apologised for this. It said it would learn from his experience to help improve service.
9. Since bringing his complaint to us the Council has offered Mr X a suitable property.
10. The Ombudsman cannot change a council’s decision on a homelessness application and we would expect someone to use the review and appeal procedure which is their right under the Housing Act 1996.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it offered Mr X a suitable remedy for the distress caused with its poor communication, and he had a review right which would be reasonable for him to use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman