Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her homeless applications in 2018 and 2019. She also complains about its decision that she is intentionally homeless. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains about the Council allocating the same case officer to consider her applications, even though she had previously complained about the officer. She also says the officer’s decision that she is intentionally homeless is unfair and unreasonable.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Ms X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms X approached the Council as homeless in 2018 when her landlord served her with a notice. She said she could not afford the rent which was to be increased. The Council officer who interviewed her told her that her property was affordable and that if she gave it up, she may be found to be intentionally homeless. Ms X says she was upset by the officer’s approach and felt bullied and insulted. The officer arranged with the landlord to renew the tenancy and for discretionary housing payment to cover the rent.
6. Ms X complained about the officer, but the Council did not uphold her complaint. In 2019 Ms X fell behind with her rent and again approached the Council as homeless. She was upset when she was allocated the same case officer as the previous year. The Council told her that there had been no fault in the officer’s handling of her previous case and that she was familiar with the circumstances from the previous application. It refused her request to change the case officer.
7. The Council told Ms X that its decision on her application was that she was intentionally homeless because she did not prevent her loss of accommodation. Ms X challenged this and says she lost her job and benefits did not cover the costs. Ms X asked for a review of the decision and the Council issued a ‘minded to’ response in November 2019. Ms X used a housing advice service to challenge this view. In December the Council issued its final review decision. The decision informed her of her right to appeal to the County Court if she disagreed with it.
8. The Ombudsman will not exercise his discretion to consider the decision on her homeless application. It was reasonable for her to challenge this in the court and she had advice in challenging the review.
9. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to assign the same case officer to both of Ms X’s complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman