Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging the Council failed to take the complainant’s health seriously when assessing his homelessness application. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to challenge the Council’s decision in court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to take his mental health seriously when assessing his homelessness application.
2. Mr X says his mental health is suffering due to his present housing conditions and he would like the Council to find him a flat.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 which includes the Council’s decision letter.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Ombudsman can consider whether the Council properly followed the required process when assessing homelessness applications. This includes whether it made adequate enquiries, considered relevant factors, acted fairly, and followed the Homelessness Code of Guidance. However, the Ombudsman cannot overturn or replace the Council’s statutory decision on whether someone meets the ‘priority need’ criteria. Challenges to that decision must be made through the section 202 review process.
7. The Council sent Mr X a detailed five-page decision letter in September 2025 with the outcome on his application for housing. It advised him it did not owe him any housing duties under the homelessness legislation. It explained the reasons why it did not consider he met the criteria under ‘priority need’, noted it had carried out a vulnerability review and explained how it had assessed if he was vulnerable under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. Finally, it advised him of his legal rights to request a review.
8. The established route for complainants dissatisfied with a homelessness decision is to use their legal rights to appeal.
9. I consider it was reasonable for Mr X to have used his rights to request a review, and if this had upheld the Council’s decision, to go to court with his concerns about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. This is especially in view of Mr X’s contention that his medical needs have not been taken seriously which could be a point of law considered in court. Further, only a court can quash the Council’s decision. So, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate as it was reasonable for Mr X to challenge the Council’s decision on his homelessness application via a review request and, if necessary, to go to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman