Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his homeless application in 2016. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period and it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal the decision to the court in 2016.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complained about the Council’s decision to discharge its homeless duty after placing him and his family in temporary accommodation in 2016. He says the Council’s actions were unfair and the initial accommodation in a hotel was unsuitable because of its size.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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 would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint and he has been given an opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says the Council treated his homeless application poorly in 2016. He says he and his family were placed in a single hotel room for several weeks during the period when the Council considered their homeless application. The Council later informed him that it had discharged its duty under s.193 of the Housing Act 1996 and would not provide further emergency accommodation.
6. Mr X says he had to accept rented accommodation after the Council told him he had failed to accept a reasonable offer and that it had discharged its duty. Mr X had no further communication with the Council and complained to us in 2019. The Ombudsman cannot normally investigate complaints about matters which the complainant was aware of more than 12 months before they complained to us.
7. It was reasonable for Mr X to complain to us during the years following the 2016 decision. However, had he done so at the time we would have advised him to appeal against the Council’s homeless decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period and it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal the decision to the court in 2016.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman