Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. Mr X had a right of review over the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty and there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it supported him during his application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to prevent his homelessness and support him to find alternative accommodation. He wants the Council to compensate him for his accommodation costs.

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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or

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

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s landlord issued him with an eviction notice in September 2023. The Council accepted a homelessness prevention duty to Mr X. The Council attempted to mediate with Mr X’s landlord, but the landlord refused to withdraw the notice.
7. Mr X was evicted in October 2023. The Council ended its prevention duty but accepted a homelessness relief duty. It offered Mr X an emergency bed in shared accommodation, but he refused and arranged his own temporary accommodation. Mr X then found his own permanent accommodation. The Council told Mr X it had discharged its homelessness relief duty because he had found alternative accommodation.
8. Mr X complained the Council had not done enough to prevent his homelessness and then support him to find alternative accommodation. The Council did not uphold the complaint.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. Mr X had a statutory right of review over the Council’s decisions to end both the homelessness prevention and relief duties and a right of appeal to the County Court if he remained dissatisfied following any review. It is reasonable for Mr X to have used his right of review so we will not investigate.
10. The Council mediated with Mr X’s landlord to try and prevent his eviction and offered him temporary accommodation once he was made homeless. It was Mr X’s choice to decline this offer. Mr X then found his own accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness application to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had a right of review about the Council’s decision and there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman