Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s handling of his homelessness case. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council's handling of his homelessness application. He says it failed to properly support and safeguard him and offered him unsuitable and unsafe temporary accommodation.
2. Mr X says this caused him distress while he was homeless. He wants the Council to provide him suitable interim accommodation.

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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Under the Housing Act 1996, a council must provide interim accommodation if it has reason to believe an applicant may be eligible for assistance, homeless and in priority need. An applicant is not required to accept the accommodation offered. However, if they refuse suitable interim accommodation, the council's duty to provide it ends.
7. Councils must ensure any accommodation they offer is suitable. What is suitable depends on the applicant's individual circumstances.
8. The Council says Mr X approached it for housing assistance in September 2025 after leaving his private rented accommodation. It accepted he was homeless and in priority need and offered him interim accommodation. Mr X refused the offer because he said he was at risk at the address. The Council made enquiries with the police and the probation service, which confirmed there were no known risks associated with the address. On that basis, the Council decided the accommodation was suitable.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness case. The Council appropriately offered Mr X accommodation once it was satisfied he was homeless and in priority need. It was entitled to decide the accommodation was suitable based on its enquiries with police and the probation service. As Mr X refused the offer of accommodation, the Council no longer had a duty to provide it.
10. Although the Council no longer had a duty to accommodate Mr X, it later exercised its discretion and arranged interim accommodation for him through its out-of-hours service.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman