Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s lack of support with his housing situation because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s lack of support with his housing. He said his current housing does not meet his medical needs and is overcrowded. Further, his landlord has served a notice to evict him.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Council records show Mr X first contacted it in January 2024. He told the Council his first floor privately rented property did not meet his medical needs and provided evidence of those needs, as well as a letter from his G.P. The Council advised him he was not eligible to join its housing register because he had not lived in the area for three years, as required by its scheme. As Mr X said he had made a homelessness application to another council, Council B, this Council said it would treat the information as an advice request until it had clarified the situation with Council B.
6. Council B confirmed it did not have an open homelessness application in late March. Council records show that in April it was considering whether to request an occupational therapist (OT) report to assess whether Mr X was homeless on the ground sit was not reasonable for him to continue to occupy the property, but it is unclear if this was, in fact, requested. The Council tried to call Mr X in April and again in May to discuss his application, but Mr X did not answer. In response to Mr X’s first complaint in May 2024, the Council confirmed it was still waiting for further information from Council B.
7. In July 2024, Mr X’s landlord served him with a notice to leave the privately rented property. It accepted a prevention duty in August 2024 and completed a personalised housing plan with him. The Council and Mr X are looking for alternative private rented housing for him.

My assessment

8. When Mr X first contacted the Council in January 2024 it treated the contact as an advice request. This was not fault as it understood Mr X already had an open homelessness application with Council B. It also advised him he was not eligible to join its housing register because he did not have a local connection as he had not lived in its area continuously for three years. This advice was in line with its published scheme.
9. In its complaint response in June 2024, the Council accepted some delay and lack of contact after agreeing to make enquiries with Council B, for which it apologised. There is some uncertainty about whether it would have decided Mr X was homeless if it had been more proactive in April and May but given Mr X appears to have moved into a property knowing it did not meet his medical needs, I consider an apology is a sufficient remedy for that.
10. The Council took appropriate action in August 2024 after receiving the notice from the landlord.
11. Overall, there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement. Therefore, we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing significant injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman