Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communications within its homelessness service. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not act against a landlord who asked him for data improperly, recorded incorrect information about him and failed to make reasonable adjustments.

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, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council has no control over a private landlord’s tenancy application process or the information it seeks to support an application. The Council’s safeguarding duties apply when it believes an adult is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect. The Council told Mr X his concerns did not meet the threshold for safeguarding enquiries. The Council is entitled to reach such a view. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
7. In July 2026 the Council made a final offer of a property to Mr X. He has the right to seek a review and appeal if he considers this offer unsuitable.
8. The Council said Mr X did not attend an appointment with its housing officer whereas Mr X says the Council officer was at fault for the missed appointment. I note the parties were able to progress Mr X’s homelessness application in any event. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
9. The Council agreed to communicate with Mr X by email as a reasonable adjustment but then continued to call him. While this caused distress, Mr X remained able to access the Council’s service. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman