Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of his homelessness application. An investigation is unlikely to achieve the outcome he desires and he could ask for a review of any accommodation offers he receives which he belives are unsuitable.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council repeatedly informed him he should consider giving up his dog if it is to offer him temporary accommodation under its homelessness duty. He stated that the Council offered no real solution and left him feeling threatened and pressured to choose between homelessness and abandoning his dog. He stated that for six months the Council failed to provide suitable alternatives, despite knowing about his vulnerabilities, and the situation has severely affected his mental and physical health.
   
   He stated the Council should actively search for serious and realistic solutions, rather than repeated requested to give up his dog, and should provide suitable housing or appropriate private accommodation.

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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• 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 X’s says Council have failed to consider his dog when assessing his housing needs under its homelessness duty. During the Council’s assessment, it was established that the dog is not a service dog. The Council clarified to Mr X that the housing needs and support service can only take the presence of a pet into account when there is clear evidence that the pet is medically essential. The Council encouraged Mr X to provide any relevant medical evidence which would have been considered in assessing his case.
6. The Council accepted the Prevention and Relief duty in accordance with Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, as it had reason to believe Mr X would become homeless. in 2025 it accepted him under the Main housing duty. The Council awarded his housing application Band C in accordance with its housing allocation policy and the evidence suggests it actively sought suitable rented accommodation. It was highlighted to Mr X the difficult in finding landlords who accept pets have limited the options.
7. The Council decided that Mr X remaining in his property until the bailiffs’ attend was reasonable in his case, given the challenge of finding alternative accommodation that would house his dog. The Council made it clear during a phone call with him that it could not guarantee that the temporary accommodation supplier would accept pets under its policy. The Council explained that the availability of dog-friendly housing determined by landlords and agents in the private sector is outside of the Council’s control.
8. The evidence suggests that the Council had reason to believe Mr X met the threshold for priority need and undertook the relevant assessments to relieve his of homelessness during the relief duty. While the Council could not guarantee pet-friendly accommodation, the caseworker worked with him to explore all reasonable options to help secure suitable accommodation.
9. If Mr X is offered temporary accommodation which does not allow pets he will have an opportunity to challenge the suitability of the offer by asking for a statutory review under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996. If this is unsuccessful he will have further appeal rights under s.204. we would expect someone to use the remedy available under the homelessness legislation because we cannot overturn a deciosn on a homelessness application.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of his homelessness application. An investigation is unlikely to achieve the outcome he desires.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman