The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application and the suitability of interim accommodation provided under the homelessness Relief duty. There is insufficient evidence of any fault in the Council’s handling of the application and offers of accommodation. It was reasonable for Mr X to challenge the Council’s decision to end its review duty and its decision that he was non-priority homeless by asking for a statutory review of these decisions.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his homelessness application. He says it failed to take proper account of his mental health condition and offered him interim accommodation which was too far from access to his daughter without using public transport which he finds difficult to use due to his poor mental health.
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 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X applied to the Council as homeless following a relationship breakdown in 2025. The Council accepted him under the homelessness relief duty and placed him in temporary interim accommodation while it made enquiries into his case. He says he provided information about his mental health condition which he described as a major depressive disorder which makes travel by public transport stressful for him.
The Council placed him in accommodation which he says is 60 minutes’ walk from where his daughter lives with his former partner. He wanted to be offered permanent accommodation closer to his daughter. The Council produced a Personalised Housing Plan and told Mr X that as a single person accommodation was limited and he would need to seek a wider distance of choice if he had a chance of being successful.
After 56 days had passed the Council ended its Relief duty and sent Mr X letters confirming this and that it had decided he was non-priority homeless, which meant it would no longer provide interim accommodation. The letters included information about asking for a review of the decisions which is under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 Part 7. These statutory reviews carry a further right of appeal to the courts under s.204 if the applicant wishes to challenge the decision.
The Council referred to Mr X’s mental health condition in its decisions and although his use of public transport may be affected, his daughter is not part of Mr X’s household and has accommodation of her own. We cannot overturn a council’s decisions on a homelessness application and it is reasonable for someone to ask for a review under s.202.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application and the suitability of interim accommodation provided under the homelessness Relief duty. There is insufficient evidence of any fault in the Council’s handling of the application and offers of accommodation. It was reasonable for Mr X to challenge the Council’s decision to end its review duty and its decision that he was non-priority homeless by asking for a statutory review of these decisions.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman