Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his requests for homelessness support. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement. Mr X had the right to appeal to the county court if he disagreed with the Council’s decision he was “not homeless” and it was reasonable for him to do so.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council refused to take a fresh homelessness application on the grounds his circumstances had not materially changed.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

8. Mr X first contacted the Council in October 2023. He said he was homeless because it was not reasonable for him to continue to occupy his private rented sector flat. A Council officer considered the concerns he raised about his housing but concluded he was not homeless or at risk of homelessness.
9. In January 2024, Mr X contacted the Council again. The Council carried out an assessment and made enquiries. In May 2024, it decided he was not homeless. On the same day, Mr X asked for a review of that decision. The Council carried out a review and upheld the original decision. It wrote to Mr X with its review decision in February 2025. It apologised for the delay in completing the review.
10. In March 2025, Mr X again contacted the Council. He said his current property was unsuitable and gave the same reasons as before. Mr X said he could not discuss the application by telephone because English was not his first language. The Council said the information he had provided was not materially different from the information he had given it previously but did give details for making an online application.
11. Mr X was unhappy about the lack of support since 2023 and complained. In its complaint response, in August 2025, the Council:
• noted his request for a reasonable adjustment but said the reason for this was due to English nor being Mr X’s first language, not due to a disability;
• said face to face assessments with an interpreter could be arranged but this was not needed on this occasion because Mr X’s circumstances had not materially changed since the previous application so the threshold for accepting a new application was not met;
• said Mr X could not be considered for social housing because he did not have an active housing register application; and
• provided contact details for reporting anti-social behaviour (ASB) by his neighbours and gave some general information about how it handled ASB reports.

My assessment

12. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. Mr X complained to us in October 2025 about events from October 2023. There is no indication he could not have complained to us earlier about his first approach to the Council and there are no good reasons to consider the period before October 2024 now.
13. I have considered the period from October 2024 to August 2025, which was when the Council issued its final complaint response. Any complaint about subsequent events would need to be addressed by the Council through its complaints process before we could consider investigating.
14. In relation to the second request for support, the Council decided he was not homeless. Mr X used his review rights, and the decision was upheld on review. In its decision letter, the Council explained he could appeal to the county court on a point of law if he disagreed with the review decision. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his court appeal rights.
15. The Council should have carried out the appeal within eight weeks but took a further six months to issue the review decision. It apologised for its delay. Mr X did not suffer a significant injustice as a result of the delay. This is because the Council’s position remained the same and he continued to live in the same flat throughout. On that basis, an apology was sufficient and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
16. When Mr X applied again in March 2025, he did not provide evidence that his circumstances had significantly changed. Therefore, it was not fault for the Council to decide the threshold for accepting a fresh homelessness application was not met.
17. The Council considered his request for reasonable adjustments but, because the request was not due to a disability, it was not required to make adjustments. Mr X could have sent the Council further documentary evidence by email, which was the way he had been contacting it, but did not do so until after the final complaint response. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement. Mr X had court appeal rights in relation to the “not homeless” decision, and it was reasonable for him to exercise those rights if he disagreed with the decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman