Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s housing. This is because for the most part, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable through further investigation. Part of the complaint also carries an appeal right to a court which it is reasonable for Mr X to use.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to include his children as permanent members of his household for the purposes of his housing and this was unlawful;
2. Failed to provide him with suitable accommodation when he was homeless; and
3. Delayed accepting homelessness duties, providing homelessness support and communicated poorly with him.
2. Mr X said he has been caused significant distress due to the faults and wants the Council to reassess his homelessness, provide suitable accommodation and revise its allocations policy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. When Mr X was evicted from his private-rented property he approached the Council as homeless.
8. The Council accepted, through its complaints process, that Mr X’s experience of dealing with its housing service had at times been poor. It upheld several of Mr X’s complaints including that:
• it delayed accepting homelessness duties to him;
• delayed assessing his medical needs; and
• failed to communicate with him properly.
9. The Council apologised, made improvements to its service including staff training, carried out the delayed medical assessment and offered to pay Mr X £500 to recognise the injustice caused. The complaint was investigated at three stages which included oversight by the Council’s Chief Executive.
10. The Council offered Mr X interim accommodation at a hotel and in October 2025 offered him a two-bedroom property and so discharged its main housing duty.
11. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman as he said:
• the accommodation the Council provided was unsuitable;
• the Council still had not considered his children as permanent members of his household which was unlawful; and
• he wanted the Council to change its housing policies so that regardless of shared residence arrangements, children were always counted as permanent members of an applicant’s household.
12. The suitability of the two-bedroom property Mr X was offered carries a statutory review right, which Mr X has used. This is followed by a county court appeal right if he disagrees with the review decision. It is reasonable for Mr X to use this appeal right so we will not investigate the suitability of this accommodation further.
13. The Council’s Chief Executive set out in the stage three complaint response why they did not agree that its housing policies were unlawful with regards to children who have shared residency arrangements. It directed Mr X to its own allocations policy and well as relevant law in support of its position.
14. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s interpretation of the law and this is therefore now a matter for the courts to decide, rather than the Ombudsman. It is open to him to seek independent legal advice. We will not investigate this part of the complaint further as we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.
15. Regarding the rest of Mr X’s complaint, the Council has already agreed that it was at fault and has remedied the injustice appropriately. We cannot achieve any more meaningful outcome for Mr X and so we will not investigate this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable through further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman