Summary: Ms B complains about the way the Council dealt with her when she approached it to make a homelessness application. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, says the Council delayed unreasonably in telling her that it could not assist her with her homelessness application. This caused her to waste her time attending appointments with the Council.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms B and the Council. I gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms B approached the Council as homeless seeking assistance to find accommodation as she was staying with a friend whose property is located in a different council area.
5. The Council told Ms B what evidence and documentation she would need to provide to support an application and booked her an appointment to come back for a full housing assessment in two weeks’ time.
6. Ms B attended the appointment and gave the housing officer details of her housing history, which involved two other councils and her approaches to them. The officer asked Ms B to continue staying with her friend while the Council made further enquiries.
7. Ms B returned to the office the next day and in response to her request for interim accommodation the officer advised Ms B to continue staying with her friend, which Ms B did, while the Council continued making enquiries.
8. The Council contacted two other councils involved with Ms B and, based on the information received, it explained that as she had no association with the Council it would not be accepting a homelessness application from her. Instead it referred her back to a council she had already sought assistance from previously and advised her to seek legal advice.
9. Ms B complained to the Council about the way it had treated her but it did not uphold her complaint.

Assessment

10. Ms B felt the Council wasted her time by not telling her at the outset that it could not help her. However, it had to carry out appropriate enquiries. It sought relevant information from Ms B herself and from the councils she was also involved with. Ms B provided no evidence of an association with the Council and it appropriately referred her back to councils with whom she did have a connection.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman