Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint against the Council decision to refer him to another local authority. This is because it is unlikely that an investigation would achieve the outcome he wants. Mr Y had statutory review rights, and it was reasonable for him to use the review and appeals procedure to challenge this decision.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained that the Council incorrectly advised him to withdraw his homelessness application due to lack of local connection. Mr Y says that the Council failed in its homelessness duties following a bailiff’s notice and proceeded with an unlawful section 198 referral to another Council. He also complains that the Council ignored requests for reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act and mishandled his complaints.

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
• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y complained that the Council unreasonably referred him to another Council when he submitted a homelessness application in 2025. He says it discriminated against him under the Equality Act, but our view is that the Equality Act is not relevant to these issues. This is because the Council referred him to a local authority that he previously resided in for several years; therefore, he had local connection and had previously applied to Newcastle City Council for housing assistance.
6. From the documents submitted the only reference to any disabilities was a Reasonable Adjustments request letter from a family member; this was submitted to the Council after the referral had been sent to the Newcastle City Council. There is also no evidence that Mr Y made the Council aware of any disabilities, mental health needs or caring responsibilities until he requested a section 202 review for the S184(4) decision made in early August.
7. After Newcastle City Council accepted the referral, the Council issued a S199A(3) decision in late September, which stated that Mr Y had the statutory right to a review this decision under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 part 7. As Mr Y had requested a review of the previous decision there is nothing to indicate he could not have requested another review of their final decision.
8. From the documents submitted, the Council did not accept a Relief Duty and there is no evidence that they provided incorrect advice or that using their discretion to submit the referral was unlawful.
9. Mr Y had a statutory right to ask for a review and had a further appeal right to the County Court about the Council’s decision to refer his application. The restriction in paragraph three therefore applies. He could have used this right of appeal and so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint against the Council decision to refer him to another local authority. This is because it is unlikely that an investigation would achieve the outcome he wants. Mr Y had statutory review rights, and it was reasonable for him to use the review and appeals procedure to challenge this decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman