Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness and housing register applications. This is because the matters complained about did not cause her sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council wrongly closed his homelessness application when he was still homeless. She also complained about data protection breaches. Ms X said the Council’s failings meant a delay in him being rehoused and caused him distress and anxiety. She said the data breaches risked his safety and privacy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. In 2021 the Council ended its homelessness duty because it said she was not in priority need. At the time, Ms X was included on her mother, Mrs Y’s housing register application, based on their overcrowding.
8. In April 2024, Ms X made a housing register application in her own right on the basis she was homeless. Although the Council did not owe a homelessness duty at that time – a homelessness application had been made but not pursued - it accepted the housing register application. In its complaint response, it accepted it should have removed her from Mrs Y’s application at that point because its allocation scheme does not permit applicants to be in more than one priority group and apologised for not doing that until May 2025.
9. Also in 2024, Ms X had an injury that caused lifelong mobility issues. She completed a medical form in May 2025 and provided medical evidence in support. In June 2025, the Council awarded Mobility Category 3 on its housing register.
10. Also in May 2025, the Council wrote to Ms X and Mrs Y to say it had removed Ms X from Mrs Y’s housing register application. In that letter it used an incorrect date of birth for Ms X. Ms X told the Council she did not want to be removed from her mother’s housing register application as she had returned to live with her after her injury because she needed support. The Council says she told them she was not homeless as her mother was not asking her to leave. On the basis she was not homeless, the Council closed Ms X’s housing register application.
11. Ms X complained the Council was wrong to close her case as she said she was “homeless at home” because she was only living with Mrs Y on a temporary basis. She considered the Council owed her a main housing duty. In its complaint response, the Council confirmed an officer had been in touch with Ms X to agree a time to carry out a homelessness assessment. It also said when it told her the housing register application had been closed, it advised her she could make a fresh housing register application and it would be assessed for medical, welfare or hardship priority. It offered her £150 for administrative errors in handling her housing register application. It did not agree there was a data breach, although it acknowledged Ms X’s date of birth was incorrect in a letter sent in May 2025.

My assessment

12. Ms X complained to us in August 2025. I have considered events from April 2024 when Ms X made a housing register application in her own right until July 2025 when the Council issued its complaint response. There is no evidence Ms X could not have complained to us sooner about earlier events and no good reasons to investigate them now.
13. It is not clear why the Council accepted a housing register application in 2024, based on Ms X being homeless, when it did not owe her a homelessness duty. Whilst this may have raised Ms X’s expectations and may have led to some confusion about whether she could remain on Mrs Y’s application, this did not cause a sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
14. It was not fault for the Council to close the housing register application when Ms X said she was not homeless. When she queried this, it agreed it would assess whether she was homeless on the grounds it was not reasonable for her to continue to occupy the accommodation with Mrs Y. If it agreed she was homeless after making appropriate enquiries, it would likely owe a relief duty for 56 days, following which it would consider whether it owed her a main housing duty. If it agreed it owed either of those duties, that would also be grounds for accepting a fresh housing register application for Ms X in her own right.
15. It was appropriate for the Council to write to Ms X and Mrs Y in May 2025 to inform them it was removing Ms X from the housing register application because, up to that point, it had been a joint application. Whilst I understand the date of birth quoted for Ms X was incorrect, this did not cause a sufficient injustice to her to justify further investigation. If Ms X remains concerned about how the Council is handling her data, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider those concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient injustice caused by the matters complained about to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman