Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it handled Mr X’s complaint about its homelessness service. There is no evidence of improper complaint handling.

The complaint

1. Mr X called the Council in late 2024 and asked it to support him with homelessness. He spoke to two of its officers on the telephone and was left dissatisfied with the outcome. He felt that, as well as failing to resolve his query, the officers were rude and unprofessional.
2. Mr says that, when he complained to the Council about this, it failed to deal with his complaint properly. He says he asked it to review call recordings, and it did not do so. He also says it ignored important information he provided.
3. Mr X’s complaint to us is about the Council’s complaint-handling, which, he says, caused him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Good practice guidance

7. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out a process for councils that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly.
8. The code says that, among other things, a council officer responding to a complaint should:
• Clarify with the complainant any aspects of the complaint about which they are unclear.
• Deal with complaints on their merits, act independently, and have an open mind.
• Give the complainant a fair chance to set out their position.
• Consider all relevant information and evidence carefully.

What happened

9. In February 2024, the Council’s housing service entered a record on Mr X’s file. It said, among other things:
• Mr X had been evicted from his previous property by the courts.
• At the time, he owed significant rent arrears.
• It had received information that he may need support with his mental health.
10. In November 2024, Mr X called the Council and asked for support with homelessness. He asked it to place him in emergency accommodation under its severe weather emergency protocol (SWEP).
11. The social worker Mr X spoke to recorded that Mr X had a “physical disability … he stated that his legs have poor blood circulation”. Mr X says he had to describe his disability over the telephone “as though [he] was a child”’, rather than the social worker looking at the Council’s records.
12. In his decision record, the social worker quoted the Council’s Housing case note from February in full. He then decided Mr X was not eligible for emergency accommodation. He offered Mr X a referral to an organisation which connects rough sleepers to local services, but Mr X declined.
13. Mr X complained to the Council about the telephone call. He said the social worker:
• refused to review case records to confirm Mr X’s housing eligibility (which he has on health and disability grounds), which amounted to indirect disability discrimination;
• referred him to an organisation which cannot even offer emergency accommodation;
• told Mr X he would speak to a homelessness charity on Mr X’s behalf, but then did not call Mr X back about this; and
• failed to provide Mr X with clear guidance and support.
14. Mr X said he wanted the Council to review the call recording and reassess his case.
15. A manager from the Council tried to speak to Mr X about his complaint, but Mr X refused. So the manager asked the social worker (and another officer Mr X had spoken to on the same night) for comments on the complaint. He asked whether the call had been recorded.
16. In mid-December, the manager responded to Mr X’s complaint. He said:
• “I am not able to listen to [your] calls with either [officer] since calls … are not recorded”.
• The social worker did review all relevant evidence from the Council’s housing and social care services. From that evidence, he made the decision that Mr X was not in priority need. He was aware from the Council’s housing records that Mr X had previously been declared ‘intentionally homeless’.
• It is standard practice, if someone is not in priority need when the SWEP is active, to refer them to the organisation mentioned in the social worker’s decision if they are street homeless and have no alternative accommodation.
• Mr X had already rejected SWEP accommodation earlier that day – offered by the charity he said the social worker was going to call on his behalf – because he did not want to share with anyone.
• The social worker did follow through on what he told Mr X he would do, but could not call him back for some time because he was dealing with other cases. He asked a colleague to inform Mr X that his decision on Mr X’s priority had not changed, and he would be unable to call him back.
• Both officers who dealt with Mr X that evening did so appropriately.
17. In January 2025, Mr X complained to the Council again. He said he was unhappy with the information included in the social worker’s decision following their telephone call. He said he wanted the decision record corrected and the social worker held accountable.
18. The Council responded, saying:
• Evidence referred to by the social worker in his report was taken from the Council’s own housing records from February 2024. This included information about mental health issues and rent arrears.
• The social worker did not base his decision solely on information from February 2024. He also reviewed more recent information.

My findings

19. Although I acknowledge that Mr X was very dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of his complaint, this is not, in itself, evidence that the Council was at fault.
20. Councils should respond to complaints fairly and proportionately. The quality of responses should broadly meet the principles set out in our complaint handling code. And decisions on complaints (including decisions on how to investigate them) should not be unreasonable.
21. In Mr X’s case, the Council:
• Addressed each of the points Mr X made, referring to case records where relevant.
• Sought telephone recordings of the calls he made – at his request – but they were not available.
• Gave explanations for the actions it took on his case which were not obviously unreasonable.
• Responded without significant delay.
22. For these reasons, there is no evidence of improper complaint handling which would justify finding that the Council was at fault.

Back to top

Decision

23. The Council was not at fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman