Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness application. This is because Mr X could have challenged the Council’s review decision on the suitability of its offer and the ending of its Relief duty through the County Court if he disagreed with the outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed to safeguard him and mishandled his homelessness case. Mr X states that he is a victim of domestic abuse and the Council disregarded evidence and decided that he was not homeless. Mr X states that this situation has caused significant distress, feelings of hopelessness and anxiety.

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.

(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 approached the Council for homelessness support in 2025 and the Council decided that he was eligible for homelessness support under the relief duty and placed him in interim accommodation. Mr X was unhappy with the room in a multiple occupation property and asked to be moved. He did not a have a statutory review right over the suitability of interim accommodation and did not complain to us.
7. In November the Council told Mr X that he was non-priority homeless and that it was ending the relief duty. He asked for a s.202 statutory review of the decision and the Council subsequently withdrew its decision on his case. The Council then offered Mr X accommodation in a supported housing scheme which he accepted. The Council discharged its Relief duty because he was no longer homeless. Mr X subsequently asked for a review of the offer decision because he believed it was unsuitable.
8. The Council concluded the s.202 review in March 2026 and the decision was that the offer was suitable. The decision letter advised Mr X of his further rights of appeal under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996 to the County Court within 21 days. Mr X did not appeal and complained to us.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. The Ombudsman cannot overturn a decision made by a council on a homelessness application. We would usually expect someone to use the review and appeal procedure available under the legislation to challenge a council’s decision. Mr X exercised his review rights and it was reasonable for him to appeal if he believed the outcome was incorrect.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X could have challenged the Council’s review decision on the suitability of its offer and the ending of its Relief duty through the County Court if he disagreed with the outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman