Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s homelessness application. The Council has offered a suitable remedy for some faults dealing with the application. It is now for the Council, not the Ombudsman, to decide what homelessness duties the Council owes Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not deal properly with his homelessness application and discriminated against him. He says this caused him stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X contacted the Council because his landlord wanted him to leave. Mr X reports the Council said it was closing his homelessness application as it did not consider him to be in priority need. Mr X also says the Council officer dealing with his application discriminated against him on the grounds of race, sexual orientation and disability. In particular, Mr X reports the Council said his mental health problems would not give him priority need for homelessness help.
6. In the event, the Council did not close the application or make any formal decisions about priority need or any other homelessness duties. So Mr X was not significantly disadvantaged in practical terms by whatever a Council officer might have told him. In this context, while I appreciate the conversations Mr X refers to might well have caused him concern, that is not a significant enough injustice for the Ombudsman to devote time and public money to pursuing the complaint.
7. The Council accepts there were some problems with its handling of the homelessness application. The Council wrongly told Mr X it had closed his application. It also wrongly said it would send a decision letter about this. The Council also delayed by two weeks in giving the case to another officer. The Council apologised for those points, offered Mr X £70 and gave the application to a different officer to investigate Mr X’s housing situation. The Council said it will consider Mr X’s situation then decide what homelessness duties, if any, it owes. I consider those actions were an adequate remedy for Mr X’s avoidable confusion and justified anger at the mistakes in handling his application.
8. During those events, Mr X’s landlord did not evict him. I appreciate Mr X was uncertain about what might happen and the situation with his landlord is difficult. However, even if the Council had acted without fault, those matters would not necessarily have been different. Dealing with housing and homelessness matters is not necessarily a quick process, especially where, as in this case, the landlord has not served the proper notice without which a tenant cannot be evicted.
9. It is for the Council, not the Ombudsman, to decide what homelessness duties, if any, it owes. When the Council makes such decisions, Mr X will have the right to ask the Council to review an unfavourable decision and to appeal to the county court on a point of law. It is not for the Ombudsman to step into that process.
10. Mr X wants the Council to decide that his mental health problems mean he is in priority need and to give him a Council home. We cannot achieve those points. As I have explained, those are matters for the Council to decide and Mr X will have the right to challenge any homelessness decision he disagrees with.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has offered a suitable remedy for its fault and it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what homelessness duties the Council owes Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman