Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s homelessness service. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. She says the caseworker assigned to her case was unhelpful and that she is concerned that her housing needs will not be met.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X approached the Council when she was threatened with homelessness. She was allocated a caseworker but says that the officer has not given her the support she expected due to her being vulnerable through having autism and mental health issues. She says that she was advised she would be offered temporary accommodation if she becomes homeless but that this would not be suitable for her needs. She asked the Council to change her caseworker.

The Council told Miss X that there was no fault in her caseworker’s approach and that she has been given a personalised housing plan and advice about the homelessness procedure. It is not possible to provide accommodation at the current stage of her application and the Council has to give a realistic expectation of what it can do. It told her that the Council has over 1300 homeless applicants and that temporary accommodation would be provided if she became homeless in due course.

Miss X was advised to contact adult social care services if she remained concerned about her vulnerabilities as this was beyond the remit of the homeless service.

6. 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.

In this case it is clear that there has been frequent contact with Miss X and over 50 email exchanges. It was necessary for the Council to manage Miss X’s expectations given the overall shortage of accommodation and high demand from other homeless applicants. It is unlikely that changing the caseworker would result in any different outcome to the handling of her case.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s homelessness service. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman