Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the way it handled her homelessness application because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her homelessness application. She said the Council:
• did not carry out all the steps in her Personalised Housing Plan (PHP);
• required her to complete an affordability assessment twice;
• failed to give her sufficient guidance about finding social or private rented tenancies; and
• closed her case but did not explain its reasons for doing so.
2. She said the Council’s failures caused her distress and uncertainty.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X asked the Council for assistance because she was at risk of homelessness. She had an initial meeting with officer 1, who said it was more appropriate for another team to deal with the matter. The Council sent an email to Ms X the same day confirming this and arranging another appointment.
9. On the day of the appointment, there was a leak and flooding in the Council’s offices. Officer 2 tried, without success, to contact Ms X by telephone to explain they needed to re-arrange the appointment. They sent her an email to explain the situation.
10. Officer 2 was not able to access the affordability assessment Ms X had completed at the initial appointment, so Ms X had to do this again. In its complaint response, the Council apologised for the inconvenience caused, which was appropriate.
11. On 26 July, the Council accepted a prevention duty. This meant it would take steps to try to prevent Ms X becoming homeless over a 56 day period. It also issued a personalised housing plan (PHP), which set out the steps the Council and Ms X needed to take.
12. Officer 2 made a referral to Home Finders, which assists people to find housing outside London. They also made a referral to the Council’s private rented sector (PRS) team, which assists people to find private rented housing. The PRS team identified a property, which it considered was affordable if Ms X reduced her expenses in particular ways. Ms X did not wish to make the changes suggested, and the Council explained it could not support her into a tenancy that was not affordable for her.
13. The prevention duty ended on 17 October 2023 and the Council sent Ms X a formal decision by email. Ms X had the right to ask for a review of that decision if she disagreed with it, and it was reasonable for her to have exercised that right. Following a review, she would have had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law.
14. That said, based on the evidence seen, the Council has taken the steps we would expect to prevent Ms X becoming homeless. Although Ms X had not secured alternative housing during the prevention duty stage, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Therefore, we will not investigate the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman