The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the way the Council dealt with a homelessness application. This is because the complainant made a complaint to the Council about a different matter.
The complaint
I will refer to the complainant as Mr B.
Mr B complains the Council wrongly closed his homelessness application, without carrying out a visit to investigate the conditions in his property, or considering medical information about his son’s health condition. Mr B also complains about the band to which the Council has allocated his housing register application.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
How I considered this complaint
I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.
What I found
In February 2025 Mr B applied to join the Council’s housing register. He did so on the basis his current property was in disrepair, which presented a significant risk to his son, who has a life-threatening health condition.
In September, Mr B submitted a stage 1 complaint. He said that, apart from an acknowledgment, he had received no further information about his application. He asked for an urgent update and an explanation for the delay.
The Council responded later in September. It noted Mr B had asked for an update originally in May, at which point the Council explained it was still within the deadline of 16 weeks for it to register the application. However, it also noted Mr B had chased it again in August, to which it had not responded.
The Council said it had now reviewed Mr B’s application and identified that some documents were missing. It asked him to provide the documents now so it could complete its assessment. It also said it would complete a medical assessment for Mr B’s son by the end of September.
The Council advised Mr B to inform his landlord of the disrepair in his current property, and explained he could refer it to the Council’s environmental health team if he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. It accepted there been a delay dealing with his application and responding to him, for which it apologised.
Mr B quickly submitted a stage 2 complaint. He said the missing documents listed in the stage 1 response were different from those the Council’s online housing portal said were still required. Mr B reiterated his son’s health condition, and said he had informed the landlord about the disrepair, but that “cosmetic repairs” were not adequate to make the property safe. Mr B described the property as “fundamentally unsuitable”.
The Council responded in October. It said it would reassess Mr B’s application in the light of new information he had submitted, but explained this did not necessarily mean the outcome would change. It repeated its advice about reporting the disrepair in his property to the landlord and the Council’s environmental health team, and also explained Mr B could submit a homelessness application if he considered it was not reasonable to continue occupying the property.
In November Mr B submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the Council had closed down his homelessness application without proper investigation by the environmental health, and asked the Ombudsman to ensure the Council reopened it.
More recently, Mr B has written to us to say the Council had placed him in an inadequate priority band on the housing register. Although he then wrote to confirm it had increased his priority, and backdated it to February 2025, he said no suitable properties were available. Mr B asked the Ombudsman to keep its investigation open until his family was adequately rehoused.
Analysis The law says a council must have a reasonable opportunity to address a complaint through its own procedure, before we accept it for investigation.
In this case, Mr B’s complaint to the Council was about a delay in dealing with application to join the housing register, and some confusion about the evidence he was required to submit as part of the application. However, his complaint to us was, instead, about the way the Council had dealt with his homelessness application. These are two different areas of law.
As Mr B has not made a complaint to the Council about his homelessness application, therefore, we have no power to begin an investigation about it.
The same restriction applies to Mr B’s more recent correspondence with us about his banding on the housing register, and the lack of available property. I cannot investigate these matters, because Mr B has not made a complaint to the Council about them.
And I will add that we will generally not investigate a complaint about a lack of suitable property on the housing register anyway. This is because there is a nationwide shortage of social housing, and, provided the Council has applied its allocation scheme properly, this is not something we can assist with. We cannot intervene to ensure a complainant receives housing.
I am conscious the Council upheld Mr B’s complaint about the delay in dealing with his housing register application, and so this is something we could criticise it for, had this been the complaint he made to us.
However, even in this case, I do not consider there is anything an investigation by us could meaningfully add here. The Council has already backdated Mr B’s priority on the housing register to his application date, but, by Mr B’s own account, there has not been a suitable property available yet. Even if there had been no delay in dealing with his application, therefore, Mr B would be in the same position he is now.
For these reasons, I have discontinued my investigation of Mr B’s complaint.
Decision I have discontinued my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman