Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council provided incorrect advice to him regarding accessing a pension fund early and about misleading him into believing the Council would support him with temporary accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further worthwhile outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council provided incorrect advice to him regarding accessing a pension fund early. He says the Council also misled him into believing that once he received the money, the Council would support him with temporary accommodation until he could find private rented accommodation.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X first contacted the Council to discuss his homelessness at the end of June 2024. The Council understood Mr X had temporary accommodation provided by another council, but that this accommodation was coming to an end because Mr X had been found to be intentionally homeless.
6. In July 2024, Council officers met with Mr X. The officers provided information about support with rent in advance and deposit for a room Mr X was considering. The Council said that during this meeting, Mr X spoke with the officers about accessing a savings account he had been paying into but could not access until he was 50. The Council said it was clarified this was a pension account and that Mr X confirmed he wanted support with accessing the funds.
7. The Council said the officer contacted the pension provider to discuss accessing the funds. The provider explained to Mr X that while he could access his pension early, this would mean losing a percentage of his pension. The provider explained to Mr X what he needed to do to begin the process of accessing the funds. Mr X signed the necessary forms and sent them to the Council.
8. Mr X chased the Council regarding sending the forms to his pension provider in July and August 2024. The Council sent the forms to the pension provider early August 2024.
9. In September 2024, Mr X contacted the Council to confirm he had received the funds and that he wanted further support from the Council. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it had failed to respond to Mr X’s email and request. The Council apologised for this.
10. In October 2024, the Council offered Mr X suitable supported accommodation. Mr X accepted the offer and so the Council closed his homeless application.
11. The Council said there was no fault with the officer’s actions as the officer was acting on instruction from Mr X. The Council confirmed it was satisfied the officer was supporting Mr X in the way he had requested. The Council was also satisfied Mr X had capacity to make financial decisions at the time and that the implications of requesting an early release of his pension had been explained to Mr X by the provider. The Council confirmed that in future, it would signpost individuals to citizen’s advice or to consider accessing advice from financial experts.
12. There is a conflict in evidence in terms of what was discussed during the face-to-face meeting in July 2024. I acknowledge Mr X feels he was encouraged by the Council to access his pension funds whereas the Council’s position is that Mr X asked the Council to support him to access the funds. We are not likely to be able to make any findings about what exactly was discussed.
13. Further, there is evidence Mr X was advised by the pension provider of the consequences of accessing his pension early. The Council is not responsible for providing any financial advice and it was Mr X’s responsibility to carry out his own due diligence to understand the implications of accessing his funds early. This is especially so given there is no evidence Mr X lacked capacity to make financial decisions at the time.
14. The evidence also shows Mr X chose to sign the forms and asked the Council, several times, to send the forms to the pension provider. There was a period of around three weeks in between when Mr X first sent the Council the signed forms to when the forms were eventually sent to the pension provider. Therefore, Mr X had the opportunity to seek any further advice if he was concerned about the financial implication of accessing his pension early. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault
15. In addition, an investigation is also not proportionate as it would not lead to any further outcomes. The Council has acknowledged it failed to respond to Mr X’s email requesting further support once he had received the funds. The Council has apologised for this, which was appropriate. The Council also confirmed a suitable offer of accommodation was provided to Mr X, which he had accepted. Nothing further is achievable from investigating this complaint point.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further worthwhile outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman