Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making and there is insufficient evidence to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Summary: Mr Y complained that the Council unreasonably delayed in carrying out their prevention duty under Section 195 Housing Act 1996, by refusing to provide him with accommodation. He says they have not considered his disabilities during his homelessness application and demonstrated inappropriate conduct during his assessment under the Equality Act 2010.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.
3. 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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y complained that the Council did not consider his disabilities during his homelessness application and demonstrated inappropriate conduct during his assessment breaching their duties under the Equality Act 2010.
7. The evidence shows that Mr Y attended a homelessness assessment appointment in October 2025. As part of the assessment the Housing Officer asked standard questions to ensure his housing needs were fully understood according to their guidelines. Although he supplied a PIP letter, the Council has an obligation to ask questions and conduct its own assessments.
8. He also complained that the Council did not provide reasonable adjustments. After investigating his complaints, the Council found no evidence of Mr Y requesting reasonable adjustments and no evidence of discriminatory behaviour during his assessment in their stage one and two responses
9. Mr Y also complained that the Council refused to provide him with accommodation, delaying their prevention duty and demonstrated inappropriate conduct during his assessment by contacting his parents.
10. From the evidence provided, the Council accepted duties under section 184, issued a section 195 Prevention duty letter and carried out Personal Housing Plan (PHP), according to legislation. Section 184 of the Act says councils must make “such inquiries as are necessary to satisfy themselves”, therefore, contacting Mr Y’s parents was a reasonable step in preventing his homelessness and fulfilling their duties. There is no evidence of the council behaving in an unprofessional way or delaying their duties.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
12. If Mr X was dissatisfied with the PHP he could have asked for a review under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 part 7 and if the plan was unchanged he could have appealed under s.204. We would expect someone to exercise their rights of review and appeal on homelessness decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman