Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly closed his homelessness application and failed to provide accommodation when he was sleeping rough. We find no fault in the way the Council decided to close his application and therefore we cannot question the outcome

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused to properly process his homelessness application and demonstrated unlawful gatekeeping when it:
1. Closed his case because it decided it could not confirm his homelessness.
2. Failed to provide accommodation when he was eligible for assistance, homeless and in priority need.
2. Mr X complains the failings denied him a statutory right of review and appeal, left him sleeping rough, and negatively impacted his work, studies, finances and mental health.
3. He would like the Council to issue a decision that has a right of review and appeal, reconsider his application, provide interim accommodation, pay compensation and train its staff to prevent a recurrence of the same faults.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

6. I have investigated from July 2025, when Mr X applied for homelessness assistance, until October 2025, when Mr X complained to us.
7. Mr X also raised concerns about more recent Council decisions. I have not investigated beyond October 2025 because the law says the Council should usually be given a reasonable opportunity to investigate matters before we do. I have seen no reason to exercise my discretion to investigate those matters in this case.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

10. 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.

Applications for homelessness assistance

11. Where a person applies to a council for assistance, it must decide if it has reason to believe the applicant is, or may be, homeless or threatened with homelessness. (Housing Act 1996, section 183)
12. If the council has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, or threatened with homelessness, it has a duty to make inquiries. The inquiries must be any the council thinks necessary to satisfy itself whether the applicant is eligible for assistance, and if so, what homelessness duties it owes. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation

13. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Applicants’ rights to review and appeal decisions

14. Applicants may request a review of certain Council decisions. These include decisions, made under section 184, as to their eligibility for assistance and what duty (if any) is owed to them. They also have a right to appeal the Council’s review decision to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204)
15. Applicants do not have review or appeal rights of a council’s decision, made under section 183, that it does not have reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness.

What happened

16. This is a summary of key events. It is not a chronology of everything that happened.
17. Mr X applied to the Council for assistance in July 2025. He said he was homeless.
18. A Council caseworker spoke to Mr X a few days later to assess his application. Mr X said he had recently been evicted from privately rented accommodation. This was because his landlord had increased his rent, which he could not afford. As a result of the eviction he said he was sleeping rough. He provided the Council documents and information regarding his identity, legal and employment status, bank records, medical vulnerability, and circumstances.
19. The Council’s records show it did various further checks for information about Mr X’s identity, addresses, local connection, legal status and benefits.
20. The Council asked Mr X to provide evidence regarding his last address and eviction as proof of homelessness. It asked for copies of his tenancy agreement, eviction notice, evidence of rent payments and contact details of the landlord. Mr X explained he was not able to provide any of that evidence.
21. The Council decided this meant it was unable to confirm the circumstances under which he left the property, whether it was still available to him, and therefore his homelessness. It decided to close Mr X’s case on that basis. It notified Mr X of its decision and reasons by letter. This is referred to as the section 183 letter.
22. Mr X understood he did not have the right to request a review of the Council’s decision in the section 183 letter. This was in line with paragraph 15 above.
23. Mr X promptly responded. He reiterated the reasons he had given for not being able to provide the evidence the Council had requested. He reiterated the evidence and information he had provided, and that he was sleeping rough and vulnerable.
24. Mr X asked the Council to issue a formal decision that he was not eligible for assistance if it did not accept the evidence he had provided. This was referred to as a section 184 decision. He said that would give him the legal rights to request a review and appeal the decision.
25. The Council and Mr X emailed one another from late July to early August. The Council maintained its position. It did not issue a section 184 decision.
26. At the end of August Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. The Council responded in mid-September. The Council maintained its position that it was unable to confirm his homelessness and had therefore issued a section 183 letter. The Council did not uphold the complaint.
27. Mr X complained to us in October.

Analysis and findings

28. I address each part of Mr X’s complaint in turn below.

a) The Council’s decision to close Mr X’s case because it could not confirm his homelessness

29. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means our role is not to ask whether we agree or disagree with what an organisation decided. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decision. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
30. I have considered how the Council decided to close Mr X’s case. The evidence shows it did so because it decided it did not have reason to believe Mr X may have been homeless. Its decision letter shows this was in line with section 183, as explained in paragraph 11.
31. I acknowledge Mr X provided evidence and information in support of his application and claim he was homeless. He explained why he could not provide evidence of a tenancy agreement, eviction notice, rent payments or contact details of his landlord. He said that was because he was renting under an informal arrangement, paid his rent in cash, and had deleted his landlord’s details.
32. I also acknowledge “reason to believe a person may be homeless” is a low threshold.
33. The Council decided it required further evidence about Mr X’s eviction to decide whether it had reason to believe he may be homeless.
34. I find no fault in the way the Council made its decision Mr X’s application did not meet the threshold of a reason to believe he may be homeless in line with section 183.
35. This is because I find the Council considered the information it had. It decided it needed further evidence to reach its decision and took appropriate steps to obtain the evidence it decided it needed. I have decided the Council was entitled to decide the absence of evidence about Mr X’s eviction meant his application did not meet the required threshold of a reason to believe he may be homeless.
36. Because I have found no fault in how it made its section 183 decision, I cannot question the outcome, as explained in paragraph 4.
37. It therefore follows the Council had no duty to provide an appealable section 184 decision. For this reason I also find no fault in its decision not to do so in this case.
38. I therefore find no fault in this part of the complaint.

b) The Council’s failure to provide accommodation when Mr X was eligible for assistance, homeless and in priority need

39. I find the Council did not have a duty to secure accommodation for Mr X. This is because that duty is only present when a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless. In this case, the Council decided it did not have reason to believe Mr X may be homeless and I have found no fault in the way it made that decision for the reasons explained under part a).
40. I therefore find no fault in this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Decision

41. I find no fault in the way the Council decided to close Mr X’s homelessness application and I therefore cannot question the outcomes. I do not uphold the complaint and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman