Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council delayed in progressing his homeless application. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different outcomes. In addition, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right of review and appeal if he disagrees with the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed in progressing his homeless application, which he submitted in November 2023.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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))

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 initially approached the Council as homeless in November 2023. The Council completed an initial assessment in the same month and asked Mr X to provide some information to help it assess his homeless claim. Mr X sent the Council some information in December 2023.
7. During its complaint investigation, the Council accepted that it had failed to progress Mr X’s application until it issued its stage one complaint response in March 2024. The Council said if Mr X submitted all the information that was required, a decision should have been reached on his decision by January 2024. Therefore, there had been a delay of three months.
8. The Council accepted the delay caused some uncertainty as it cannot say whether Mr X would have provided the required information. It also accepted the delay meant there was lost opportunity to progress Mr X’s application. The Council offered a symbolic financial payment of £300 to recognise this.
9. An investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any different outcomes. This is because the Council has already acknowledged there had been delays in progressing Mr X’s homeless application and it has offered an appropriate remedy to recognise the injustice caused by the delays. An investigation would not lead to anything further.
10. In September 2024, the Council issued a decision letter setting out that it was not satisfied Mr X was homeless or in priority need. The Council outlined in this letter the efforts it made to obtain information from Mr X that it considered was necessary and relevant to assessing Mr X’s claims of homelessness. The Council confirmed Mr X failed to provide the information requested.
11. The Council set out its rationale for why it decided Mr X was not homeless, threatened with homelessness, or vulnerable and in priority need. The Council also appropriately outlined Mr X’s right of review to challenge its decision.
12. We will not investigate this complaint as Mr X has a right of review and it is reasonable for him to use this right of review. If Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s review decision, he will have the right of appeal to the county court. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to exercise this right of appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different outcomes. In addition, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right of review and appeal if he disagrees with the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman