Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the Miss X’s homelessness application. This is because the injustice has been remedied during our consideration.

The complaint

1. Mr X, on behalf of Ms Y, alleges errors by the Council while considering Ms Y’s homelessness application made after surviving domestic abuse.
2. The Council had already admitted some errors for which it had offered Ms Y a financial remedy before Mr X approached the Ombudsman.
3. However, Mr X complained to us that the Council had failed to provide a complete remedy to Ms Y. Mr X said the Council failed to consider if Ms Y’s priority start date had been corrected and whether relevant primary evidence had been fully considered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained that the Councill had failed to assess Ms Y’s priority date correctly, including whether relevant primary evidence (a Domestic Violence referral and a Personalised Housing Plan) has been given sufficient weight. And if a formal decision was made and properly communicated in line with the allocations scheme. He said Ms Y had suffered distress, uncertainty and delays and wanted the priority start date to be put back to 5 November 2018.
8. We found that if we were to investigate, it was likely we would find fault causing Ms Y injustice because of possible errors obscuring the priority start date.
9. This was evidenced by a document dated 5 November 2018, from Croydon Domestic Abuse Service to the Council’s homelessness/housing service, labelled as a ‘referral form’ with the option for housing ticked. It appeared Ms Y had already been with the Domestic Abuse Service since 15.5.2018 when she moved into hostel accommodation. The form appeared to show the Council’s email address to refer the case to the Council which cast doubt on the Council’s inference that this was not a referral for housing support document. Further, the dating of the PHP is 15.4.2019 which conflicts with the Council’s contention that Ms Y was referred for assistance in June 2019.
10. Given this, we invited the Council to consider whether it wishes to take steps to resolve the complaint without the need for a formal investigation. We therefore invited the Council to take the following action within one month of a final decision:

• Write to Mr X to confirm it will backdate the priority date to 5 November 2018.
• Reconsider if Ms Y missed any rehousing opportunities
• Review the complaint handling of the two primary evidence documents and feedback within one month if the Council considers complaints handling training may be necessary.

To its credit the Council agreed to resolve the complaint within one calendar month to put things right.

11. We have upheld the complaint as the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms Y. This is alongside considering a possible service improvement to help other complainants.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint any further because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by remedying the injustice caused to Ms Y.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman