Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the shared accommodation the Council arranged or its decision he was not in priority need. Mr X had court appeal rights and, despite his disabilities, it was reasonable for him to use them.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council placed him in unsuitable temporary accommodation that did not meet his medical needs. He also complained it did not properly consider the combined impact of his medical conditions when deciding he was not in priority need and that the Council was in breach of the Equality Act 2010.
2. Mr X said his physical and mental health was adversely affected by being placed in shared accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

6. We can 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

9. The Council placed Mr X in interim accommodation in July 2025 because it had reason to believe he may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need. The accommodation was a specialist hostel in which Mr X had his own bedroom and bathroom but had to share cooking facilities and communal space.
10. On 5 August, Mr X asked the Council to review the suitability of the shared accommodation.
11. On 13 August, the Council, having completed its enquiries, decided he was not in priority need. It wrote to him with its decision. Mr X asked for a review.
12. On 30 September, the Council carried out a review of both decisions. It decided the shared accommodation was suitable and set out its reasons. It decided the decision Mr X was not in priority need was correct. It confirmed the original decision-maker had applied the correct test and had carefully considered the combined impact of Mr X’s medical conditions. It explained Mr X could appeal to the county court if he disagreed with its decision.
13. I understand Mr X has since moved to a different council area.

My assessment

14. The law says we cannot investigate complaints where the person complaining has court appeal rights and it is reasonable for them to use those rights. Mr X had court appeal rights in relation to the Council’s decisions about the suitability of the accommodation arranged for him and its decision he was not in priority need. Despite his disabilities, it was reasonable for him to use those appeal rights.
15. We cannot say whether the Council is in breach of the Equality Act 2010. That is a decision only a court could make. Insofar as this complaint relates to the Council’s decisions about the suitability of accommodation and whether Mr X was in priority need, Mr X could have raised this as part of a court appeal. Or alternatively he could start a disability discrimination claim. It is unlikely that further investigation by us would lead to a worthwhile outcome.
16. Even if we decided it was not reasonable for him to appeal, we would not investigate because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making. It has considered relevant information, including the correct legal test for the priority need decision, and it explained the reasons for its decision in detail and in writing. There was also no undue delay in making its decisions. In the circumstances, we cannot comment on the decision reached.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had court appeal rights and, despite his disabilities, it was reasonable for him to use them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman