Summary: Ms G complains about the length of time the Council took to decide her homelessness application. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms G’s complaint. There was a delay in the Council deciding and this is fault. However, there is insufficient evidence that this fault caused Ms G a significant injustice, so investigation is not warranted.

The complaint

1. Ms G says the Council took over 380 days to decide her homelessness application despite the fact she gave it the relevant evidence to decide her application much sooner. Ms G says the Council’s delay has been damaging to her mental health. Ms G says she has had increased expenses because of the length of time she spent in temporary accommodation and the situation has caused her stress and uncertainty.

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:

• 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 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 have considered information from both Ms G and the Council. I have also given Ms G an opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms G sent a homelessness application to the Council in June 2017. The Council placed Ms G in temporary accommodation while it reviewed her application.
5. Ms G says she kept chasing the Council and it reassured her it would shortly decide her application.
6. The Council wrote to Ms G in May 2018 and said she was intentionally homeless which meant it did not have a duty to rehouse her. The Council’s assessment was Ms G was in rent arrears with her previous landlord.
7. Ms G appealed against the Council’s decision. The decision was overturned because new information came to light which showed Ms G did not owe her landlord any arrears of rent. Ms G remained in temporary accommodation until October 2018, at which point the Council found her permanent accommodation.
8. Ms G complained to the Council in July 2018 about the delay in deciding her homelessness application. The Council admitted the delays were unacceptable, apologised and said it would review its procedures to make sure it didn’t happen again.
9. Ms G says the temporary accommodation the Council placed her in was expensive and she incurred further expenses than she would have done. The Council said in response the rent for temporary accommodation was greater than her previously privately rented accommodation. However, it was not subject to the same restrictions on the amount that could be included in her assessment for housing benefit assistance in the same away as private accommodation.
10. There is also no guarantee that if the Council had decided sooner, Ms G would have been able to secure cheaper accommodation than the Council provided her with. Therefore, the evidence does not suggest Ms G was financially worse off because of the Council’s delay.
11. Although the Ombudsman would be likely to say the Council’s delay was fault, there is not enough evidence it led to a significant injustice in this case. I say this because the Council provided Ms G with temporary accommodation throughout this period. Although there would have uncertainty for Ms G, she was not in a position where she was homeless during that time. The evidence also doesn’t suggest Ms G was disadvantaged financially. The apology the Council provided is a suitable remedy for the complaint, and the Ombudsman would be unlikely to achieve more than this if we investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. There is insufficient evidence the Council’s delay caused Ms G a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman