Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council handled her homelessness application. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation and there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to process her homelessness application quickly enough, stating it failed to communicate with her effectively, and intentionally delayed the process. She believes these delays were deliberate and racially motivated, as she had submitted multiple complaints to the Council.
2. As a result, she and her vulnerable child experienced avoidable distress and were placed in emergency accommodation. Ms X wants financial compensation from the Council for the avoidable distress caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review.

(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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X lived in a property with her child, their carer and a family dog. In June 2024, Ms X’s landlord served her with a section 21 notice, initiating the eviction process. Ms X approached the Council for assistance. Following enquiries, the Council found the notice to be valid and confirmed that Ms X was required to vacate the property by the end of July.
7. Ms X reported delays in the Council's handling of her application, including the receipt of submitted documents and scheduling of an interview. In early July, the Council assessed her circumstances and accepted the relief duty.
8. When Ms X vacated the property in early September, the Council offered her temporary accommodation. However several incidents also led to her eviction from this property in November. The Council offered her interim temporary accommodation. The Council decided to end its relief duty after determining that, although Ms X had a priority need, she was intentionally homeless. This was due to actions by her and their child’s carer which resulted in multiple evictions from suitable accommodation. The Council made its decision in accordance with the law. Ms X was also advised of her right to request a review within 21 days if she disagreed with the Council’s decisions. There is no good reason why Ms X could not have used her right to ask for a review and therefore we will not investigate Ms X’s complaint.
9. The Council acknowledged there were some delays in processing Ms X’s case due to increased demand for its services and apologised to her. Ms X believed the Council’s delays were deliberate and racially motivated. In the Council’s complaint response, the Council found no evidence of deliberately delaying her application process. Therefore we will not investigate Ms X’s complaint as there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation and there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
10. The Council further strongly denied any delays were racially motivated. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. If Ms X believes the Council’s actions led to discrimination against her, that would be a matter for the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation and there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman