Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application and Mr X’s acceptance of an offer from a housing association outside the Council’s area. It was reasonable for him to ask for a review/appeal the Council’s homelessness decisions in 2024 and he did not do so.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about being housed in Liverpool after he presented as homeless in February 2024. He says he has suffered racism and affordability problems in Liverpool since he moved there and wants to be re-housed in the Luton area.

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
• 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))

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 says he was forced by the Council to take an offer of housing in Liverpool following a homelessness application in February. He says he was told he would be intentionally homeless if he refused any offer. After accepting an offer of permanent housing from a housing association he moved to Liverpool but says he has suffered from racist attitudes and affordability problems since then. He wants to be rehoused in Luton.
6. The Council says Mr X approached as homeless in February 2024 and was told he was considered to be a non-priority single applicant. He did not challenge the decision or ask for a review but made a new application shortly afterwards saying he had been threatened by 4 unknown men and felt unsafe in Luton. The Council accepted him under the relief homeless duty and he was not eligible for interim accommodation as a non-priority applicant .
7. The Council identified a housing association vacancy outside Luton and Mr X accepted it as a permanent tenancy, not temporary accommodation. The Council ended its Relief duty to him as he was no longer homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. Mr X says the social housing tenancy is not suitable for him because he cannot afford it and because he has experienced racism in the city since he moved there. The Council told him the accommodation is affordable and he should make a claim for housing benefit to his local authority. He accepted the accommodation of his own accord and not under any homeless duty because he was non-priority.
9. Mr X now says that he was not unsafe in Luton and the Council forced him to move elsewhere. He has made a new housing application but the outcome is not known.
10. If Mr X wished to challenge the Council’s decision that he was non-priority or the ending the Relief duty it was reasonable for him to ask for a review under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996. He did not do so and he accepted an offer of a social housing tenancy as a housing applicant. He says he was not under any threat in Luton and was forced to move elsewhere but the facts do not support this. The basis of his second application was that he felt unsafe and wished to move away.
11. Mr X has a permanent social housing tenancy and he would need to seek a mutual exchange or a transfer through his landlord if he is ineligible for the Council’s housing register.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application and Mr X’s acceptance of an offer from a housing association outside the Council’s area. It was reasonable for him to ask for a review/appeal the Council’s homelessness decisions in 2024 and he did not do so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman