Summary: The complaint was about the handling of Mrs X’s homelessness situation. The Council did not deal properly with correspondence, including a review request. This caused Mrs X avoidable uncertainty. To put matters right, the Council has taken steps including reviewing its decision and offering to pay £750.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council did not deal properly with matters related to her family’s homelessness. This caused Mrs X avoidable uncertainty.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I considered relevant events related to Mrs X’s family’s homelessness.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mrs X’s solicitors and information the Council sent me when it proposed a remedy for the complaint.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs X and her family became homeless. The Council provided interim accommodation while considering their homelessness application. It then sent a decision letter stating it believed Mrs X was intentionally homeless. Mrs X had the right to ask the Council to review that decision.
7. Mrs X’s solicitors asked the Council for a copy of Mrs X’s file and stated that, once they had the file, they would request a review of the decision. The solicitors also put some points to the Council, arguing that Mrs X was not intentionally homeless.
8. The Council said Mrs X could remain in the interim accommodation until it reviewed its decision. However, the Council did not then progress matters. Mrs X complained to us a year later.
9. During our consideration of the complaint, the Council accepted it was at fault for delaying doing the review and not responding properly to correspondence from Mrs X’s solicitors (including formal complaints and requests to see Mrs X’s file). The Council recognised its faults caused avoidable uncertainty to Mrs X and her family.
10. The Council then completed its review of the homelessness decision. It decided Mrs X was not intentionally homeless and accepted a duty to secure accommodation for her and her family. Meanwhile, the Council moved the family to new temporary accommodation, which Mrs X’s solicitor told me Mrs X considers satisfactory. The Council also proposed further action to remedy matters (see below).

Agreed action

11. As well as the actions described above, the Council has offered to:
1. Send a written apology for its failings;
2. Pay the family £750 to recognise the avoidable uncertainty caused by its handling of the review; and
3. Work with the family to find longer-term accommodation.
12. Mrs X considers this a satisfactory remedy for her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have completed my investigation because the Council and Mrs X have agreed the Council has offered a satisfactory remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman