The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness and housing case. It was reasonable for him to use his alternative right of appeal to the County Court on the homelessness decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of his housing case to justify us investigating.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his homelessness and housing cases. He says the Council: failed to review his priority banding; changed his Personalised Housing Plan without consulting him; wrongly closed his homelessness case; and misrepresented his actions and mishandled his complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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 when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) The County Court deals with appeals about homelessness decisions.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X.
I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complains the Council failed to review the priority banding of his housing application when it accepted that it owed him a homelessness duty. He says the Council should have awarded him a higher banding.
The Council’s housing allocation policy says it will award a higher priority banding to eligible applicants when it accepts a homelessness prevention or relief duty. However, it may cancel that priority when the duty ends. The policy also allows the Council to exercise discretion to depart from the policy in exceptional circumstances.
Between June 2025 and October 2025, the Council owed Mr X a prevention duty. The Council explained that it exercised its discretion not to award a higher priority banding because it would not have prevented his homelessness within the 56-day prevention period, due to the average waiting times for social housing. It instead decided that alternative housing options could better prevent his homelessness in the circumstances.
The Council considered its homelessness duties, its housing duties and its discretionary powers. It has explained the reasons for its decision. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify us investigating. Where there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision, we cannot question the outcome.
In October 2025, the Council owed Mr X a relief duty for a period of six days. The Council explained that this was not enough time for any change in priority to be applied. It further explained that as it has now ended its relief duty, Mr X is no longer entitled to a higher priority banding.
Even if a review had resulted in a higher priority banding, it would only have applied for six days and was unlikely to have helped Mr X secure social housing sooner, given the waiting times. The Council not reviewing Mr X’s priority banding during this period has therefore not caused him significant enough injustice to justify us investigating.
Personalised Housing Plan Mr X complains the Council changed his Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) without first consulting him. He says the amended PHP suggested unsuitable accommodation for his circumstances.
The Statutory Homelessness Code of Guidance says that councils should make every effort to secure the agreement of applicants to their PHPs. If the council is unable to reach an agreement, they must record why they could not agree. Councils cannot end their relevant homelessness duty for any failure to cooperate with the steps recommended in the PHP.
The evidence I have seen shows the Council sent Mr X the amended PHP in October 2025. Mr X objected to the recommendation of shared housing. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s objections but maintained that shared accommodation was suitable for his housing needs.
I do not consider the Council’s handling of the PHP has caused Mr X significant enough injustice to justify us investigating. The Council gave Mr X an opportunity to comment on the amended PHP. It was not required to accept his objections. The evidence shows it ended its relief duty because Mr X declined an offer of private rented accommodation that it considered suitable, not because he failed to comply with the PHP. Any alleged injustice arising from the suitability of the accommodation can be addressed through the statutory review process.
Decision to end homelessness The Council decided to end its relief duty because Mr X declined private rented accommodation it considered to be suitable. Mr X asked for a review of this decision. The Council upheld its decision on review.
The review decision carried a right of appeal to the County Court. The Ombudsman is not an alternative appeal body. I have seen no evidence to suggest it was unreasonable for Mr X to appeal to the County Court. Therefore, I will not investigate this aspect of his complaint.
Misrepresentation of actions and mishandling of complaint Mr X says the Council misrepresented his actions and inaccurately recorded information about his engagement and finances, which he believes affected the homelessness decision.
Mr X had the opportunity to provide further evidence to the reviewing officer for its consideration. If he disagrees with the review decision, it is reasonable for him to use his right of appeal to the County Court. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating this point now.
Mr X also complains about the handling of his complaints. As a public funded body we must be careful with how we use our resources. As we are not investigating the substantive issues, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the complaint handling in isolation. Therefore, I will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to use his right of appeal to the County Court on the homelessness decision. There is also not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of his housing case and some of the matters have not caused him significant enough injustice to justify us investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman