Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with Mr Y’s homeless application and housing priority. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Summary: Mr Y complained that the Council mishandled his housing allocation because they failed to make necessary adjustments concerning his mental health. Mr Y says this is because they reallocated a Housing Officer who was previously in charge of his case in 2023.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the Complainant and the Council. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y received his first housing band decision in October 2023; he was awarded Band C which entitled him to one additional bedroom. He received several letters restating this decision as recently as August 2025.
7. Mr Y’s first application for homelessness was closed in November 2023 at the end of the Prevention Duty period. The Council warned Mr Y they were going to end the duty at the end of the month because they had been unable to contact him. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this application as it was closed more than 12 months before Mr Y complained to us. He could have asked for a review at the time under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 Part 7.
8. The time for receiving complaints is from when someone became aware of the matter they wished to complain about, not when they complained to the Council or it issued its final response. We would expect someone to complain to us within a year, even if they were dissatisfied with the time the complaints procedure was taking.
9. From the evidence submitted, the Council was considerate of his mental health needs and provided a high level of care, including following Mr Y’s reasonable adjustments. The previous case worker re-allocated to his case in 2025 had background knowledge of Mr Y’s needs and specialised in mental health. There is no evidence this put Mr Y’s housing application at any detriment.
10. Despite receiving numerous Housing Band decision letters for several years, Mr Y did not ask for a review at any point. The evidence shows that he only made one bid whilst he was on the housing register.
11. Mr Y also refused to consider private rented accommodation, any shared accommodation, moving out the area or submitting another homelessness application after he had asked for his previously one to be withdrawn. The Council explained to Mr Y that being restrictive to such an extent would prolong his homelessness.
12. When the Council opened a new homelessness application for Mr Y in December 2025, it was with the aim to increase his housing banding. However, they were unable to reach him and closed the application in March 2026.
13. There is no evidence that the Housing Allocation was applied incorrectly but there is evidence that Mr Y did not wish or was unable to resolve his homelessness, due to repeatedly failing to communicate with the Council.
14. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.
15. While it is understandable that Mr Y has found it frustrating that he has remained homeless and his housing banding has not increased, the Council explained this was due to Mr Y restrictive housing wishes and repeatedly failing to meaningfully engage with the housing process.
16. Where we are unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome, we do not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with Mr Y’s homeless application and housing priority. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman