Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homeless application. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different or worthwhile outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his homeless application. He says the Council did not provide him with support and penalised him for owning a property.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X approached the Council as homeless. He also applied to join the Council’s housing register with his sister as part of his household.
6. The Council initially refused to provide Mr X with interim accommodation because he owned a property. The Council later reviewed its decision and accepted it was not reasonable to expect Mr X to return to and occupy his property due to a relationship breakdown. The Council provided Mr X with interim accommodation at the same accommodation as his sister.
7. The Council also initially did not consider Mr X and his sister to be a household. This was because they had not previously lived together. However, the Council reviewed its decision once Mr X provided evidence to show they were each other’s carer and accepted them as a household.
8. While the Council did initially refuse to provide Mr X with interim accommodation and to accept Mr X as a household with his sister, it had its reasons for the decisions. Once Mr X provided the Council with new information to consider, it appropriately reviewed its decisions and provided Mr X with interim accommodation.
9. The Council also initially decided Mr X was not eligible to join its housing register. The Council’s housing allocations policy details who can qualify to join the register. It notes that applicants above the financial thresholds would not qualify for an allocation of social housing.
10. The Council confirmed that Mr X would receive equity equal to or above the threshold once the sale of his house is completed. This was why Mr X’s application was initially rejected. However, as the Council decided in August 2024 that it owed Mr X the main housing duty, it subsequently accepted Mr X onto the housing register.
11. An investigation is not justified as it would also not lead to any different or worthwhile outcomes. This is because Mr X has now been accepted onto the housing register and the Council has confirmed it has accepted it owes Mr X the main housing duty.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different or worthwhile outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman