Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. The Council has apologised and offered to pay him £100 for its delay in making a payment to his landlord and this is sufficient to remedy any injustice caused. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered whether to revoke his landlord’s licence to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s:
• failure to protect him from an abusive landlord and revoke the landlord’s Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licence;
• delay in progressing his homelessness application;
• delay in paying his new landlord the deposit and first month’s rent;
• failure to make a relocation payment;
• delayed in carrying out a review of its decision to end the relief duty; and
• delayed responding to his complaint.
2. Mr X said the failings meant he remained in unsuitable accommodation longer than he should have done, which affected his physical and mental health, and that he suffered financially.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

8. In May 2024, after his landlord asked him to leave his rented property, Mr X reported disrepair to the Council, which he hoped would stop his landlord evicting him. In June, the Council served an improvement notice, requiring the landlord to carry out works to address the disrepair identified. Shortly afterwards, the landlord assaulted Mr X, and the Council opened a homelessness case.
9. The Council carried out a homelessness assessment and asked Mr X to provide various documents. On 13 August 2024, it accepted a relief duty, which is a duty to support the applicant to find alternative housing and usually lasts 56 days. It issued a personalised housing plan (PHP), which provided information about finding a private rented sector (PRS) property and said it could help with one month’s rent and a deposit through its prevention fund.
10. On 11 October, a letting agent contacted the Council to say Mr X had viewed a PRS property that he was interested in moving to. The same day, the Council explained what documents it would need to consider if the property was suitable and whether it could pay the deposit and first month’s rent. The Council officer sought approval for that to be paid on 14 October, but the senior officer who was considering the matter, requested an affordability assessment so the Council could be satisfied the property was affordable.
11. Mr X signed a tenancy for the property and moved in early November 2024. Council records show it made various attempts to contact Mr X to obtain the information needed for the affordability assessment during November, but Mr X did not pick up calls or respond to voicemail messages or emails asking him to contact it. The Council agreed to make the payment in late January 2025, despite Mr X not having provided all the information it asked for. The payment was made to the landlord on 17 February 2025, after the landlord had provided an up-to-date bank statement to confirm their bank details.
12. On 21 March, the Council ended the relief duty on the grounds Mr X had accepted a suitable offer of accommodation. On 25 March, Mr X asked for a review of that decision. The review request was initially overlooked, and this was not identified until early May, after a further email from Mr X.
13. In mid-May, the Council wrote to apologise for the delay in carrying out a review. It gave him the opportunity to provide any further information within 7 days. It also responded to some of the concerns he had raised in his review request. It said:
• there was no duty to provide accommodation for him because he was not considered to be in priority need;
• a payment for £1,900 for the deposit and first month’s rent was paid directly to the landlord, who had confirmed receipt;
• it had not made a £500 payment for removal costs because this was not requested at the time. It explained that payment came under a scheme for those agreeing to move out of the Borough and whose financial circumstances meant they could otherwise not afford to do so; and
• there was no delay in progressing the homelessness application, nor any failure to keep Mr X updated. It also noted it had responded to various communications from the MP and a local councillor on Mr X’s behalf.
14. Mr X has made several separate complaints covering the issues set out in this decision, which the Council has responded to at both stages of its complaints process. In a final response in June 2025, the Council offered to pay Mr X £200. This was calculated on the basis of £100 for its delay in making the payment to the landlord and £100 for delays in the complaints process. It again explained about the relocation payment and invited him to provide relevant evidence to support a request for such payment.
15. In its response to Mr X’s complaint the Council had not revoked the landlord’s HMO licence in view of the harassment he said he had suffered and the physical assault, the Council explained it had:
• considered the concerns Mr X had raised, but did not consider the landlord’s actions meant that his son, who was the HMP licence holder, was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence; and
• issued the licence for a reduced term of 12 months, rather than 5 years, to reflect the concerns it had about the management of the property.

My assessment

16. Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to protect him from an abusive landlord and to take enforcement action against the landlord has been considered separately.
17. The Council explained why it had not revoked the HMO licence and there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify further investigation.
18. Council records seen do not indicate a general delay or a failure to keep Mr X updated prior to him finding a new property. There was a delay in ending the relief duty after he signed the new tenancy, but this did not cause Mr X an injustice. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing a sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
19. The Council accepted a delay in making the payment to the landlord for the deposit and one month’s rent. Mr X was not out of pocket, nor is there evidence his tenancy was put at risk. However, he was put to some avoidable time and trouble contacting the Council about the payment. The Council has apologised and offered to pay him £100 to remedy the injustice caused by its delay. This is an appropriate remedy and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
20. Mr X did not ask about the payment for removal costs until some months after he moved. I have seen no evidence the Council offered this or said it would make the payment, and Mr X was specifically asked to provide evidence if that was the case, which he appears not to have done. There is no indication that Mr X would have met the criteria for a payment under that scheme and the Council has since updated its website to make the criteria clearer. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing a sufficient injustice for us to consider this part of the complaint further.
21. The Council accepts there was a delay in starting the review of its decision to end the relief duty. Councils have 56 days to carry out these reviews from the date of the request and this initial delay meant the review decision was a week late. The Council has apologised for the delay, which is sufficient to remedy any injustice caused. We will not consider this complaint further because it is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
22. The scope of the review was to consider whether the decision to end the relief duty was properly made. Therefore, it was not fault for the Council to exclude the other matters set out in paragraph 14 from the review. It has addressed them through its complaints process.
23. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision to end the relief duty was correct. Unless there was fault in its decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The Council invited Mr X to submit relevant evidence, considered the information he provided and set out its reasons for deciding it had correctly ended the relief duty in some detail. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it considered its decision to justify further investigation. It also explained Mr X could appeal to the county court on a point of law if he disagreed with its decision and it was reasonable for him to do so because only the court could say the Council’s decision was wrong.
24. We do not investigate complaints handling unless we are also investigated in the underlying complaint. However, I note the Council has responded to the various concerns raised and, where there was a delay in doing so, offered a payment to remedy Mr X for the injustice caused by that delay. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
25. For all the reasons set out above, we will not consider this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

26. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application because the Council has already taken appropriate steps to remedy any injustice caused by its delay in making a payment to the new landlord. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council decided not to revoke the first landlord’s licence to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman