Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with a homelessness applicant’s request, for a review of its decision he was not in priority need. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr D.
2. Mr D complains about the Council’s decision he was not in priority need, after Mr D made a homelessness application on the basis he was at risk of violence in his current property. He says, as a result, he has been left suffering anxiety and stress, which in turn has affected his physical health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

6. 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. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
7. A council will owe a homelessness duty to an applicant if it has reason to believe they are homeless, or threatened with homelessness, legally eligible for assistance, and is in priority need.
8. ‘Priority need’ means that an applicant falls within one of the statutory categories in Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 which require a housing authority to secure accommodation for them because of their vulnerability or personal circumstances. This includes (but is not limited to) households with dependent children, pregnant women, and persons who are vulnerable through age, disability or other special reason.
9. A homelessness applicant has the statutory right to request a review of certain council decisions, including a decision they are not in priority need. They have 21 days to make this request, from the date they receive the relevant decision.
10. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
11. For a review of a decision about priority need, the council must complete it within eight weeks of received the request. If an applicant disagrees with a council’s decision on their review, or does not complete the review, the applicant then has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Mr D’s complaint

12. In 2023, while living at his mother’s property, Mr D says he was the victim of serious violence nearby. He had moved elsewhere afterwards, but in 2025 had to return to his mother’s property. As the perpetrators of the attack on him still lived in the vicinity, Mr D said he was afraid of being attacked again. For this reason he made a homelessness application to the Council, on the basis he did not have accommodation that was suitable and safe for him to continue occupying.
13. In September 2025, Mr D says a council officer called him, and informed the Council intended to make a decision he was not in priority need. On the same day, Mr D wrote to the Council to complain about this decision. In his complaint, he asked the Council to carry out a review of its decision.
14. Approximately two weeks later the Council issued its formal decision letter, explaining its decision Mr D was not in priority need, and that he had the right to request a review. The Council says Mr D did not contact it to request a review after receiving this letter.
15. In October Mr D contacted the Ombudsman to complain about the Council’s decision.

Note on jurisdiction

16. Mr D also had the right of appeal to the county court about the Council’s failure to deal with the review. Where the law gives a person a right of appeal to a court or tribunal about a particular matter, we generally expect them use that right, rather than making a complaint to us about it. We would normally, therefore, decline to investigate a complaint of this nature.
17. However, I have decided to exercise discretion in this instance, because this is a very straightforward matter, and I consider it would be disproportionate to expect Mr D to approach the court about it.

Back to top

Analysis

18. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the way a council has made its decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or unduly delayed making a decision. We call this ‘fault’ and, where we find it, we can consider the impact of the fault and ask the council in question to address this.
19. But we do not make operational or policy decisions on a council’s behalf, or provide a right of appeal against its decisions. If we find a council has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if the complainant feels strongly it has made the wrong decision. We do not uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with something a council has done.
20. In this case, that means it is not for me to make my own decision on Mr D’s homelessness application, and whether he is in priority need. This remains a decision for the Council to make.
21. I note the Council did not actually complete a formal review of its decision on Mr D’s application, despite his explicit request for it to do so. We would, ordinarily, find fault by the Council for this.
22. However, the Council has provided a copy of an email it sent to Mr D in response to his request. The email explains that, because of his right to request a review, it would not accept a complaint about this decision. It also explained the case officer would be issuing a formal decision letter in the near future, and that Mr D would be entitled to request a review once he had received it.
23. I am conscious this had the capacity to cause some confusion. Mr D was already aware of the Council’s decision, and so it could be argued it was an unnecessary complication to ask him to wait to receive it in writing before submitting a request for review. I consider the Council could simply have accepted the review request at that stage, to deal with in the normal way once it had issued the formal decision.
24. I also question the sense in giving Mr D an informal notification of its decision, before waiting another two weeks to issue the formal decision letter. The Council has explained it believes it is good practice to give applicants early notification of a decision like this, but that, in this case, there was a delay because the case officer was on leave. I appreciate the logic of giving an early notification, and I agree it is unfortunate the officer’s leave coincided with their decision on Mr D’s application. However, it was still clearly unhelpful for the Council to leave Mr D in suspense.
25. Ultimately though, I cannot overlook that the Council gave Mr D clear instructions about the proper way to challenge its decision. There is no reason to believe the Council would not have carried out the review, had he done so, but it has confirmed it did not receive any further request from Mr D to this effect.
26. Taking these points together, and while I have some criticism of the Council, I do not consider this is enough to justify a finding of fault.
27. I will also note the Council has now confirmed it will accept a late request for a review from Mr D, if he chooses to submit one.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman