The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a homelessness case. This is because the Council's actions provide a suitable remedy and further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. There is insufficient evidence of fault in relation to the other matters.
The complaint
Mr X complains there was confusion and delay surrounding interim accommodation provided by the Council. Mr X says this significantly impacted his mental health. He wants the Council to be held accountable for its actions and wants it to pay him compensation.
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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and s34H(1), as amended)
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 was made homeless in October 2025. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188).
Priority need Examples of applicants in priority need are: people with dependent children; pregnant women; people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age; care leavers; and victims of domestic abuse.
Mr X went to the Council on the day he was made homeless. He said he had a medical condition. The Council said it did not have enough information at the time to decide whether he had a ‘priority need’. The Council has a duty to make further inquiries if it has reason to believe a person is homeless and is in priority need.
The Council offered Mr X interim accommodation while it waited for further information. That accommodation was available until the end of October, but Mr X thought it was just for one night. Mr X left the interim accommodation and went out of the area.
When the Council found out Mr X was out of the area and may have been unsafe, it offered him to attend its offices to arrange accommodation. But Mr X could not afford to get back to the Council office.
Mr X moved to accommodation in his chosen area in November 2025.
The Council accepted its records were not clear about how long the interim accommodation was available for. Correspondence between Mr X and the Council after he left the property also seemed to suggest Mr X was told the accommodation was only available for one night. The Council agreed this was confusing for Mr X and potentially could have led to him being street homeless. It offered to pay him £300 as a remedy for giving him the wrong information and the uncertainty it caused. This is an appropriate remedy according to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. Further investigation into this part of the complaint is unlikely to achieve anything more for Mr X.
Mr X also complained about how housing staff handled his case. In its complaint responses, the Council explained the reasons why staff said and asked the things they did. There is not enough evidence of fault in how Council staff handled Mr X’s case to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
We will not investigate this complaint because the Council offered Mr X a financial remedy for the injustice it caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and further investigation would not achieve a different outcome. There is insufficient evidence of fault in relation to the other matters.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council's actions provide a suitable remedy and further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. There is insufficient evidence of fault in relation to the other matters.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman