Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint against the Council about the handling of his homelessness application because there is insufficient evidence of fault its decision-making to justify our involvement. It was reasonable for Mr Y to ask for a review of the Council’s decision son his Personal Housing Plan and its decision to end the Relief duty.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained that the Council mishandled his homelessness application by providing contradictory deadlines, pressuring him to sign documents under duress, producing an incomplete Personal Housing Plan, and failing to secure private rent property. He also complained that the Council repeatedly ignored his concerns about affordability, employment insecurity, and sustaining a tenancy above LHA rates.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met.
   (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

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 Y complained that the Council failed to support him secure private rented property. He says they repeatedly ignored his concerns.
7. From the documents submitted there is no evidence that the Council pressured Mr Y to sign documents under duress and all deadlines were clearly explained. Mr Y approached the Council as homeless in 2025 and he then refused to sign documents which initially delayed his case because the Council was unable to carry out enquiries. Assessments carried out during the homelessness application were complete including the Personal Housing Plan.
8. The Council advised Mr Y to contact them regarding any questions in their Relief Duty acceptance letter. He corrected a section of the PHP; therefore, it was reasonable for him to address other areas he viewed as incomplete.
9. The Council offered Mr Y several opportunities to attend viewings for properties which he could not attend due to holiday and work commitments. They demonstrated support by rearranging viewings several times to accommodate his schedule, after receiving no communication from Mr Y. When they reached out to him several times to confirm if he would accept the property. He advised the property was unsuitable due to disabilities and unaffordability, based on the information the Council had received at the time of assessment, the accommodation was suitable. Mr Y notified the Council about his needs at the property viewing in late September despite, being aware of his diagnosis outcome in August.
10. There is no evidence the Council ignored his concerns. They explained that it was reasonable for Mr Y to provide correct and prompt information so they could support him. Mr Y had approached the Council with a property £300 above the LHA rate, and it was reasonable for them to offer him similar properties. They also explained that it was reasonable that Mr Y take steps to prioritise relieving his homelessness as agreed previously in his PHP.
11. The evidence submitted shows that in October 2025 the Council issued him with a Section 189B(2) Decision Letter which stated their Relief Duty had ended and they no longer owed him this duty. They explained this was because Mr Y had refused a final accommodation offer, which was deemed suitable and affordable. They advised him that he could request a section 202 review of this decision within 21 days. Mr Y had a statutory right to request a review of this decision and pending the outcome, appeal to the County Court about the Council’s decision to close her 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

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint against the Council about the handling of his homelessness application because there is insufficient evidence of fault its decision-making to justify our involvement. It was reasonable for Mr Y to ask for a review of the Council’s decision son his Personal Housing Plan and its decision to end the Relief duty.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman