Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s homelessness. This is because the Council’s decision carried a right of review which it was reasonable for Mr X to use.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
1. Failed to properly consider his vulnerability due to his health issues when he was homeless;
2. Ended the relief duty to him without any warning; and
3. Gave him incorrect advice about his eligibility for benefits.
2. Mr X said because of the Council’s faults, he lived in unsuitable, unsafe accommodation for longer than necessary and is now street homeless. Mr X wants the Council to provide him with suitable accommodation and pay him compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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.
4. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal, we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken, or there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

Relevant law and guidance

The relief duty

7. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Interim accommodation and priority need

8. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. Examples of applicants in priority need include people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Review rights

9. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions, including whether they are in priority need. Councils must complete reviews of these decisions within eight weeks of the review request. If the applicant still disagrees with the review decision, they can appeal to the county court.
10. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))

Back to top

My assessment

11. Mr X applied to the Council as homeless. The Council accepted a relief duty but decided he was not in priority need. However the Council did not send a letter explaining this. Instead Mr X only learned the Council had accepted the relief duty 56 days later, when it told him the duty had now come to an end.
12. Within two days the Council apologised for its error and put it right by starting the relief duty again from that date and informing him of this by letter.
13. By this time, Mr X had nowhere to live and the Council provided Mr X with some interim accommodation at a hotel while it considered whether Mr X might be in priority need due to his health conditions. It continued providing Mr X with support to find private-rented accommodation to meet its obligations under the relief duty.
14. After the second relief duty period ended on 11 May 2026, the Council told Mr X it was not satisfied he was in priority need due to his health conditions and the Council therefore did not owe him a further duty to provide accommodation. The Council explained the reasons for its decision in detail and told him he could request a review of the decision within 21 days if he disagreed. The Council said he would need to leave his hotel accommodation in nine days’ time.
15. Mr X did not agree with the Council’s decision on priority need, as he said his health conditions were getting worse and made him especially vulnerable to being homeless. He did not request a review and instead submitted a change of circumstances form and complained to the Ombudsman.
16. Regarding complaint 1a, it is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether a person is in priority need or not. The Council explained its decision in detail and told him of his review rights. As Mr X disagreed, it would have been reasonable for Mr X to request a review. It is open to Mr X to now ask the Council if it will consider a review out of time.
17. We also should not investigate complaint 1b. The Council failed to send an initial letter accepting the relief duty. However when it realised its error, it restarted the relief duty meaning Mr X was supported under this duty for longer than he would have beenif not for the fault. I am satisfied with the actions the Council took to remedy this and so will not investigate this further.
18. Mr X also said during this time the Council gave him incorrect advice about his entitlement to benefits, including how much support he would receive towards the cost of his rent from Universal Credit. From the records I have reviewed there is a disagreement between Mr X and the Council about what he might receive but there is no evidence to support that the Council gave him incorrect advice. We should not investigate this further as there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it carried a review right which was reasonable for him to use and there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman