Summary: We shall not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because: the complaint is late; we are unlikely to be able to reach a clear enough view about the events now; and the Council was not responsible for many of the events Mr X is concerned about.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council acted wrongly by referring him to accommodation provided by another organisation.
2. Mr X says this disadvantaged him, affected his mental health and resulted in him having to leave the accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these.
7. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.
8. 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him.
10. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

11. Mr X reports that in late 2016 he told the Council he was homeless.
12. The Council referred Mr X to an organisation supporting single homeless people, which I shall call Organisation Z.
13. The Council states it had no contract with Organisation Z and did not fund Organisation Z. The Council also states it was for Organisation Z to decide whether to accept each referral.
14. Responding to a draft of this decision, Mr X said the Council endorsed Organisation Z’s later actions towards Mr X by ‘putting him there.’
15. However, the Council did not ‘put’ Mr X in the accommodation. It was for Organisation Z to decide whether to offer Mr X accommodation.
16. Mr X also argued the Council should have checked the accommodation’s suitability for him and should have provided aftercare and reviews of Organisation Z’s services. He compares this with checking a care home’s services.
17. However, the Council only dealt with Mr X regarding his possible homelessness. The Council had no responsibility for any health or social care services Mr X might need. It had no duty to follow up on such points.
18. Mr X moved into Organisation Z’s accommodation soon after the Council’s referral.
19. Mr X is unhappy with Organisation Z’s service. He states:
• He received inadequate support.
• Organisation Z’s actions were insensitive to his needs, especially his mental health conditions.
• Organisation Z’s staff acted in ways that were harmful to him.
• The accommodation had disrepair and poor conditions.
• The problems with Organisation Z affected Mr X’s ability to move on to live more independently.
20. Mr X argues the Council acted wrongly in referring him to Organisation Z.

The length of time taken to complain to us

21. The Council’s referral was in 2016. Mr X complained to us in October 2020. So the restriction in paragraph 4 above applies.
22. Mr X told me he did not complain to us sooner because:
• His mental health problems were making him unwell at the time he moved to Organisation Z’s accommodation.
• He did not know of our existence until late 2019 or early 2020.
• He did not understand the Council’s responsibility.
• He feared Organisation Z would evict him if he complained while living there. (Mr Z had left Organisation Z’s accommodation when he complained to us.)
23. Mr X reiterated those points in response to my draft decision. He argued he could not reasonably have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.
24. I note all those points. I sympathise with Mr X’s difficulties.
25. However, I am not persuaded those points amount to good enough reason to investigate the complaint over three years after the events.
26. Also, even if I thought there were grounds for making an exception to the 12-month period, that would not overcome other reasons not to investigate the complaint now. I shall set out those reasons below.

Could any investigation now reach a clear enough view about the events?

27. It is unlikely any investigation now would reach a clear enough view about the Council’s actions so long ago.
28. Mr X suggested the Council should have adequate records, which should show how it considered his vulnerability, his condition and ‘what he needed to develop.’
29. However, the Council just referred to Organisation Z as a possible provider of accommodation for single homelessness people. The Council was only concerned with the housing situation.
30. There was no requirement for the Council to assess in detail Mr X’s condition, his health or social care needs or what non-housing services he might need.
31. So any investigation now of the Council’s records from 2016 would be unlikely to find much information on the points Mr X is raising.
32. Nor would an investigation now be likely to answer clearly other questions that the Council’s records would not necessarily cover, such as why the Council referred Mr X in one particular direction.
33. Therefore I still consider any investigation now would be unlikely to reach a clear enough view about events in 2016.

The Council is not responsible for Organisation Z

34. The Council did not contract with Organisation Z. It did not give Organisation Z any funding for Mr X’s accommodation.
35. That means the Council was not responsible for Organisation Z’s actions once Mr X moved there.
36. It follows that we cannot investigate Organisation Z’s actions or make recommendations for changes to how Organisation Z operates, which is one of the main things Mr X wants from his complaint.
37. Mr X’s response to my draft decision agreed with this.
38. Mr X added the Council just put him in accommodation without researching where would best suit his mental health condition, needs and development.
39. As I have explained, the Council’s only role was to suggest somewhere that might provide a roof over Mr X’s head. It was not the Council’s duty to find somewhere suited to all Mr X’s other needs, or to provide aftercare.

Back to top

Final decision

40. We shall not investigate this complaint, for the reasons given above.
41. This is because the complaint is late and it is unlikely we would now be able to reach a clear enough view on events to decide the Council was at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman