Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. He says it mismanaged his case, failed to provide him suitable interim accommodation and wrongly decided he was not in priority need. He says that without temporary accommodation he will be homeless, putting his health and safety at risk. He wants the Council to provide him suitable interim 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate
4. 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)
5. The County Court deals with appeals about homelessness decisions.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In April 2025, Mr X approached the Council for homelessness assistance after receiving an eviction notice due to rent arrears. In May 2025, the Council accepted it owed Mr X a prevention duty and issued a personalised housing plan.
9. After a bailiff’s warrant was issued for Mr X’s property, the Council accepted the relief duty. It made offers of accommodation which Mr X declined.
10. The evidence I have seen shows Mr X remained in his property throughout the prevention and relief duties. During this time, the Council took steps to relieve his homelessness, including making offers of accommodation. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out its prevention and relief duties to justify us investigating.

Non-priority need decision

11. In January 2026, the Council ended its relief duty as it decided Mr X was not in priority need. Mr X asked for a review of this decision. He also asked the Council to provide interim accommodation whilst it completed the review.
12. The Council completed its review in May 2026, upholding its decision that Mr X was not in priority need.
13. There was some delay in the Council completing its review. However, I do not consider this caused Mr X a significant enough injustice to justify us investigating. If Mr X disagrees with the Council’s non-priority decision then he can appeal to the County Court. I have seen no evidence to suggest it was unreasonable for Mr X to appeal.
14. During the review period, the Council continued to consider his housing circumstances, including whether to provide him interim accommodation pending the review. When deciding whether to provide accommodation pending a review, councils should consider:

• the merits of the review;
• whether any new information could change the original decision; and
• the applicant's personal circumstances and the consequences of not providing accommodation.

15. The evidence I have seen shows the Council considered these factors before deciding not to provide interim accommodation. It explained the reasons for its decision and I consider those reasons to be appropriate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision and therefore we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. It was reasonable for him to appeal the non-priority decision to the County Court. There is also not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided not to provide him interim accommodation pending the review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman