Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council providing homelessness support as a loan because we have previously considered that issue. The new issues complained about have not caused Mr X a sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council’s support when he became homeless was repayable. He said he had no option but to sign the loan agreement as otherwise he would have been homeless. He said other households, such as refugees, get support that does not have to be repaid, which is unfair. He says repaying the loan is causing financial hardship.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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

What happened

5. The Council accepted a homelessness duty in late 2024. A few months later, Mr X identified a private rented property he considered suitable and asked the Council to help him secure it. The Council provided funding to secure the property and Mr X signed a loan agreement in mid-March 2025. Mr X complained to us and we issued a decision in July 2025.
6. Mr X made a further complaint to the Council after it sent a letter about loan repayments to his old address. He also complained it spelt his name wrong. The Council apologised and corrected its records.
7. Mr X later complained again about having to repay the loan. He said other households, such as refugees, do not need to repay housing support. In its response, the Council said it had given Mr X advice about the financial liability before he signed the loan. It added that support for refugees and certain other household were funded by the Home Office via national schemes.

My assessment

8. We have previously considered Mr X’s primary concern, which is the fact the homeless support is repayable, and we will not reconsider that decision.
9. Mr X did not suffer a sufficient injustice in relation to the errors referred to in paragraph 8 to justify us investigating. In any case, the Council has since corrected its records.
10. Refugees and some other applicants are supported by the Home Office and not by councils. We cannot investigate complaints about Home Office schemes as that is outside our remit. The law does not prevent councils from providing housing support as a loan. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have considered the key issue previously.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman