Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to start an investigation of this complaint that the Council had not given a homeless man enough help in finding housing. This is because the man has now been offered suitable accommodation, and it is unlikely we could achieve a better outcome for him than this.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained the Council had not given him enough help with housing since he approached it as homeless last year. Mr B also complained the Council had unreasonably refused to include his daughter in his applications for housing.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council or that further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr B provided about his complaint. I also gave him an opportunity to comment before I reached a final view in his case. In addition, I took account of information the Council supplied in response to my enquiries about Mr B’s complaint.

What I found

4. Mr B applied to the Council as homeless last year.
5. The Council accepted it had a relief duty under the Housing Act 1996 (‘the Act’) in Mr B’s case. This meant it had to take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for him.
6. But the Council also decided Mr B did not have a priority need under the Act, so it did not have a duty to provide any emergency accommodation for him itself.
7. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman after several months had passed because the Council had not helped him find any accommodation.
8. One of Mr B’s complaints was that the Council had not helped him secure private rented accommodation under its Rent Deposit Scheme despite him finding a suitable property. Mr B also said the Council refused to add his daughter to his housing applications after she too became homeless.
9. Following my enquiries to the Council it made further contact with Mr B. The Council re-iterated to Mr B about the possibility it could offer him a loan to cover rent in advance and a deposit if he could find a suitable private rented property. The Council also said Mr B could search for a two-bedroom property so his daughter could join him.
10. In addition the Council confirmed he could add his daughter to his housing register application.
11. Subsequently Mr B found a suitable private rented property and the Council agreed to give him a loan to cover the deposit and rent in advance he needed to secure the accommodation.
12. Mr B has not informed us about any other outstanding issues he still has with the Council. As a result I do not see there is reason for us to pursue his complaint any further.
13. In particular I consider the Council has now taken effective action to address the main issues in Mr B’s case regarding his ongoing homelessness and his wish for his daughter to be accommodated with him. In the circumstances I do not see we would be justified in starting an investigation of Mr B’s complaint as it is unlikely this would achieve a better outcome than the one already provided.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council had not offered him enough help in finding housing. This is because the Council has now assisted Mr B in securing suitable accommodation, and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve a better outcome.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman