Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a homelessness application. The Council has provided an acceptable remedy for the injustice its faults caused Mr X. Investigation is unlikely to achieve significantly more.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly deal with his homelessness application. He says this caused avoidable distress for nearly a month as he feared eviction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
3. 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X was a Council tenant. The Council had a warrant to evict him. A bailiff had made an appointment to enforce the eviction. So Mr X expected to lose his home imminently, with no alternative accommodation. Mr X, helped by his legal adviser, sought to apply as homeless. Four weeks later, the Council accepted a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent him becoming homeless (“the prevention duty”). On the same day, the Council agreed to suspend the eviction and reached an agreement about the rent arrears. That ended the risk of homelessness and Mr X continued in his tenancy.
7. As paragraph 2 explained, the law prevents us considering the Council’s actions in its role as Mr X’s social housing landlord. This decision statement therefore deals with the Council’s actions on its homelessness duties. I understand anyway the complaint is largely about what happened about the Council’s homelessness duties, not its landlord role.
8. The Council accepts some fault: broadly, that it delayed acting substantively on Mr X’s homelessness application for four weeks. It said that was because of a shortage of resources. I agree the Council was at fault. If that fault had been avoided, it would still probably have taken some time to resolve matters. Without fault, the Council would likely have accepted the prevention duty around the time Mr X applied. However, it might then have taken a week or two to decide on substantive action and conclude matters. That would likely have involved a result similar to what eventually happened: an agreement about the rent arrears, removing the risk of eviction.
9. Even if the Council was at fault on more points than it has recognised, the impact on Mr X would have been broadly the same: several weeks’ avoidable uncertainty, adding to Mr X’s distress at an already stressful time. Facing homelessness and experiencing a delay in getting Council services would be difficult for anyone, but I am mindful Mr X’s literacy difficulties arguably heightened this when dealing with requests to provide information to the Council while fearing imminent eviction.
10. The Council apologised and offered Mr X £250. Mr X considers that inadequate. £250 seems broadly in line with what we would recommend for such situations as a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice the Council’s fault caused. We would not seek ‘compensation,’ which is for the courts. So investigation by us is unlikely to achieve significantly more here.
11. The Council states it is improving services: recruiting more officers to deal with homelessness enquiries; seeking to improve communications between Council departments; and seeking to improve what it can offer people threatened with homelessness. Investigation by us would be unlikely to recommend significantly more here either.
12. Mr X argues the Council wrongly claimed its homelessness department had prevented the eviction by making an arrears payment arrangement. Mr X says it was actually his legal representative who negotiated that. The key point here is that the arrangement was made, and the eviction stopped. In the circumstances, it would be a disproportionate use of resources to investigate the discrepancy in the accounts of how the arrangement came about.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. We cannot consider the Council’s actions in its role as landlord. The Council has provided an acceptable remedy for the injustice its faults caused Mr X. Investigation is unlikely to achieve significantly more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman