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

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s investigation and interview about her homeless application. She says the officer asked questions and made comments about her family situation which she believes was unreasonable and may be discriminatory.

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 says the Council told her that it would not be able to offer the type of accommodation which she needs under her homeless application. She presented as homeless in 2024 because she was threatened with losing her accommodation. The Council was required to interview her and establish her finances with regard to affordability and what type of accommodation nit may need to provide.
6. Miss X says her son had ADHD and his behavioural problems would make it necessary to have council social housing. The officer interviewing her told her that his condition would have the same implications in any type of rented accommodation that was offered. Due to high demand, it may be several years before council accommodation could be offered and she was advised that initially private rented accommodation would be offered which may be temporary.
7. Miss X says she was advised that her income was relatively high when she says that she is unable to afford rent deposits or other financial costs associated with private renting. The Council says it has to assess applicants for affordability and that it can offer assistance where there are needs to meet initial housing costs. This is part of the prevention duty assessment.
8. Miss X also says she was advised that the Council could not guarantee her having a property with a driveway or that it could provide accommodation with her dogs as this is not part of the homelessness duty. Many councils have to place applicants in any part of their area or even in other council areas when no suitable accommodation can be found.
9. There is insufficient evidence that the Council’s assessment of the homeless application was flawed or discriminatory. Housing authorities are required to verify all homelessness applications and to manage expectations according to their resources. The Council gave Miss X information which she may have found distressing but it was a realistic reflection on what may be offered if she lost her accommodation.
10. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s advice about its homelessness Prevention duty. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman