Summary: Miss X complains about how the Council has dealt with her complaint about housing needs and homelessness. The Council was at fault because it did not accept its homelessness duty to Miss X when it should have done. The Council has offered to pay Miss X £150 for her time and trouble and £500 for distress. This is an appropriate remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complains that the Council has not properly remedied the fault it has agreed to when it upheld her complaint about her housing needs and homelessness.
2. Miss X says that had she been treated correctly in the first place, she would not be in the situation she is in now and she would not have gone through all of the upset she has.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I was unable to speal with Miss X about her complaint. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the supporting documents it provided.
5. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened?

6. Miss X approached the Council in 2020 saying she was being evicted from her home. She complained to the Council about how it dealt with her circumstances.
7. The Council partially upheld her complaint at stage two of its complaints process and offered to pay Miss X £150 for her time and trouble and pay her £500 for delay and distress.

Analysis

8. The Council has accepted it was at fault in its stage two complaints process.
9. The Council agreed that if it had accepted a homelessness duty to Miss X earlier and complete a Personal Housing Plan (PHP), her homelessness could have been prevented by June 2019. It accepted that, “As a result of failing to accept a prevention duty when we should have, and failing to agree a subsequent Personal Housing Plan, you have remained in your current home for longer than may have been anticipated, adding distress to you family.”
10. This is fault by the Council. Miss X remained in her home for 26 months longer than she should have done.
11. Miss X did not actually become homeless because government restrictions meant she was not evicted during the COVID-19 period.
12. The Council has awarded the maximum financial payment according to its compensation guidance. There is no evidence Miss X has suffered greater injustice. This is an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have found fault by the Council causing injustice to Miss X. The Council has already offered an appropriate remedy for this. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman