Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s lack of support when he became homeless due to domestic abuse and, in particular, its decision he was not in priority need.
2. Mr X said that, as a result of the Council’s failings, he had to arrange hotel accommodation or sleep, which impacted on his health condition. He also suffered anxiety, stress and poor sleep.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

6. Mr X contacted the Council in late September 2024. He said he had been arrested by the police following an altercation with his sibling and his bail conditions meant he could not return home. He asked the Council to arrange emergency accommodation, but it told him he did not meet the criteria for this because he was not in priority need. It referred him to its rough sleepers team.
7. Mr X was unhappy the Council had not arranged emergency accommodation and made a formal complaint. He said the police supported his request. In its response, the Council explained the information Mr X provided about his relationship with his sibling did not amount to domestic abuse and did not indicate a level of ongoing risk that meant he was in priority need. In a further response, the Council confirmed it was not for the police to decide whether emergency accommodation should be offered.
8. In October, the Council carried out a homelessness assessment. It accepted a relief duty and issued a personalised housing plan. This recorded Mr X said he had obsessive compulsive disorder, anxiety and depression, but these had not been formally diagnosed. The Council made an enquiry of the police, was informed that Mr X come to the attention of the police as a suspect.
9. In January 2025, the Council referred Mr X to a social housing provider and the provider offered housing in February 2025.

My assessment

10. The law says that a person who is homeless due to domestic abuse is automatically in priority need, which means councils have a duty to provide emergency accommodation. The Council considered whether Mr X was homeless as a result of domestic abuse and decided he was homeless because of a breakdown of family relationships.
11. Since he was not automatically in priority need as a result of domestic abuse, the Council considered if it had reason to believe he was in priority need because he was vulnerable in some other way, such as because of medical conditions. The Council decided he was not in priority need for health reasons because he did not have any diagnosed medical conditions and had not needed any support from his GP for several years.
12. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision as correct. Unless there was fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decisions reached.
13. When making decisions about whether he was homeless due to domestic abuse or was in priority need for another reason, the Council considered all relevant factors. Further, it explained its reasons to Mr X when he first approached it, following the homelessness assessment and in its complaint response. We will not consider this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman