Summary: A woman complained about the Council’s decision that she had no priority need as a homeless person and, as a result, would have to leave the accommodation it had provided for her. But we will not investigate this matter because the Council has now reversed its decision and we could not achieve a better outcome than that.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) & 24A(7))
3. The law says that, before investigating a complaint, we must normally be satisfied the Council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and to reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Ms B’s representative provided about her complaint. I also took account of information the Council supplied in response to my enquiries. In addition, I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

5. In response to my enquiries about Ms B’s complaint, the Council said it had already reconsidered her homelessness case in the light of new medical evidence she provided. As a result the Council had withdrawn its earlier decision and the notice it had given Ms B to vacate her interim accommodation. The Council has now accepted that Ms B has a priority need which means it has a duty to secure longer term accommodation for her.
6. In the circumstances I consider the Council has now taken satisfactory action to address Ms B’s main complaint. As a result, there is no need for us to start an investigation in her case as we could not achieve a better outcome for her than the one the Council has already provided.
7. As regards Ms B’s complaint about the length of time the Council has taken to decide her homelessness case, I note the Council has not yet had an opportunity to look into this matter and reply to her. Therefore I consider it reasonable to expect Ms B to take the rest of her complaint through the Council’s own complaints procedure at this stage.

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint that the Council had unreasonably decided she did not have a priority need for homelessness assistance and must leave her interim accommodation as a consequence. This is because the Council subsequently withdrew its decision and accepted that Ms B has a priority need, and we could not achieve a more favourable result for her than that.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman