Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council provided homelessness support. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his review and appeal rights if he disagreed with the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council supported him after he made a homelessness application. He said the Council did not properly consider the evidence he provided. He said it racially discriminated against him.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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 approached the Council for housing support after his landlord asked him to leave his accommodation. He told the Council he had a social housing tenancy elsewhere that he could live in, but he had moved to its area to study. Based on the information Mr X provided, the Council did not assess Mr X as homeless. The Council wrote to Mr X with that decision and set out his review rights.
7. If Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision, it would have been reasonable for him to ask for a review. If that review was not in his favour, Mr X would have had the right of appeal to the County Court. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint, as it would have been appropriate for Mr X to use the review process.
8. Mr X also complained to the Council about how it completed the homelessness assessment. He said it asked unnecessary questions. He said the Council discriminated against him based on his race. In its complaint response, the Council explained it needed to ask Mr X a range of questions to complete the assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
9. The Council did identify it did not respond to Mr X after he approached it a second time because his landlord had harassed him. The Council apologised for this oversight. That apology remedies any injustice caused. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it was appropriate for him to ask for a review of the Council’s homelessness decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman