Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council mishandling his homelessness case because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision making to justify our involvement. Mr X has exercised his statutory review rights in relation to the decision that he does not have priority need. It was reasonable for him to use the appeal against the review decision offered by the homelessness legislation.so we will not be able to investigate this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council mishandled his homelessness case. Mr X complains that the Council failed to properly consider his complaints and evidence and this has left him in accommodation which is unsafe. Mr X states that he has significant anxiety and distress because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 X first approached the Council for homelessness support in September 2025 and he was provided with interim accommodation under the homelessness Relief duty. Mr X reported issues with the accommodation he was provided with so the Council moved him to alternative accommodation.
7. The Council decided that they owed Mr X a Relief duty but that he was not in priority need. Mr X requested a review of this decision and the Council conducted a review. Mr X requested the Council to extend his occupation of interim accommodation until the review was concluded. The Council agreed to this.
8. The review upheld the original decision that Mr X did not have priority need. Mr X has exercised his right for a s.202 statutory review and has been told that he could appeal to the County Court but has chosen not to, we will not be investigating this part of the complaint.
9. Mr X also complained that the Council disregarded evidence and that his housing officer was unprofessional and dismissive. The Council went through their stage one and stage two complaints procedure, considered Mr X’s case and referred him to our services. It accepted that the officer he spoke to was unclear about restrictions on his recording the conversation but this had no bearing on the content of the conversation and the actions leading to the Council’s decision on his homelessness.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision making to justify our involvement. Mr X has exercised his statutory review rights in relation to the decision that he does not have priority need andit was reasonable for him to use his right of appeal under the legislation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman