Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assistance towards paying for accommodation which Mr X secured for himself under the Council’s homelessness prevention duty. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to agree to pay him for a deposit and initial rental for accommodation which he found for himself following his homeless application. He says the Council delayed giving him the assistance he needed under its homelessness prevention duty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or

further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X approached the Council in April 2023 following receipt of a s.21 notice to quit from his landlord which expired in June. The Council accepted the homelessness prevention duty to Mr X and issued a personalised housing plan which includes assisting to secure the current accommodation and provided advice in seeking alternative housing.
6. Mr X approached the Council in May to say he had found alternative accommodation in the private sector but required assistance with the deposit and initial downpayment. The Council told him on 5 June it would find out if the payments were acceptable for assistance. On Jun e13 Mr X told the Council he had secured loans from friend and family and needed to pay back this money if the Council paid the agents. The Council told him on 21 June that it could only make payments to landlords for assistance and not loans secured individually.
7. The Council later agreed to pay some of the amount to the agents as a goodwill gesture if Mr X provided documentation covering the loan payments he had received and the payments to the agents. He has not yet provided satisfactory evidence at the time of his complaint.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. I have considered the Council’s actions under its homeless prevention duty and there is no evidence of fault here. The Council needed sufficient time to agree to how much of Mr X’s expenses on securing accommodation were eligible for assistance. It did not advise him to borrow money from third parties to make payments without first ensuring he could be re-imbursed for some or all of the amount. Mr X was not homeless when he agreed the loan and the Council is not required to pay these amounts he has requested.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assistance towards paying for accommodation which Mr X secured for himself under the Council’s homelessness prevention duty. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman