Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s homelessness application. It was reasonable for him to use his statutory right of appeal to the county court about the Council’s decision he was not homeless. The Council has agreed to take suitable action to remedy the injustice we would likely say was caused to Mr X for the parts of his complaint we could investigate.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled his homelessness application. He said:
1. it failed to properly consider his vulnerability and disability, and his status as a victim of domestic abuse, when deciding he was not homeless;
2. it sought disproportionate evidence before it would provide emergency accommodation, and discriminated against Mr X on the basis of his gender and health.
2. Mr X said the matter caused significant distress and financial hardship. He wants the Council to offer safe, secure accommodation for his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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 may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
5. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Part a of the complaint – the Council’s decision Mr X was not homeless

8. When the law provides a statutory right of appeal for a decision, we will not normally investigate the matter instead.
9. We will not investigate the Council’s decision Mr X was not homeless, three days after he first presented to the Council. This decision brought a statutory right of appeal to the county court. The Council explained that right at the end of the decision letter it sent to Mr X.
10. Legal aid is available for this process, and the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. The courts are best place to consider the Council’s decision Mr X was not homeless. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his statutory right of appeal.
11. It may now be open to Mr X to ask the courts to consider a late appeal. It is open to Mr X to seek legal advice to do so.

Part b of the complaint – fault we would likely find

12. If we were to investigate part b of Mr X’s complaint, it is likely we would find fault causing him and his family injustice. We would likely decide:
• The Council did not clearly record a decision on the day Mr X first contacted it, that it did not have reason to believe Mr X may have been homeless, eligible and in priority need. This is a low threshold. Mr X said he had fled domestic abuse, presented with his child and told the Council about his disabilities. The Council made some enquiries, which indicates this low threshold was already met. The Council did not receive responses that day to the enquiries it had made.
• Mr X’s assertion that he had fled domestic abuse was evidence that should have led the Council to accommodate him on the day he presented. Section 21.25 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance is clear that “If there is evidence that would give the authority reason to believe the applicant may be homeless as a result of domestic abuse the authority should make interim accommodation available to the applicant immediately whilst they undertake their investigations”.
• The Council applied a higher threshold in this case than the law sets out. The Council told Mr X “Despite what you may have been told by other advice agencies; we need to reach a level of proof to establish ‘reason to believe’ that your family is eligible for assistance, homeless and in ‘priority need’ before we can move on to consider emergency accommodation”.
13. Given the Council made its not homeless decision three days later, triggering
    Mr X’s statutory right of appeal, we would likely decide the above fault meant
    Mr X and his family lost out on three nights’ interim accommodation. This also caused distress.

Parts of the complaint with insufficient evidence of fault

14. Mr X alleges the Council discriminated against him on the basis of gender and disability. There is insufficient evidence the Council’s actions were based on
    Mr X’s gender or disability, and that it failed to take into account its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
15. I have also considered the Council’s decision not to accommodate Mr X pending review of its not homeless decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council came to that decision. It considered this decision properly and explained its reasoning in the letter it sent to Mr X. We cannot comment on the Council’s decision if it has been made without fault.

Action the Council has agreed to take

16. I asked the Council to consider providing a remedy at this early stage of our process to recognise the injustice we would likely decide its actions had caused.
17. As part of considering a suitable symbolic payment for Mr X’s and his family’s distress, I considered our Guidance on Remedies section on making symbolic payments. I have considered that Mr X may have contributed to his own injustice by delaying permission for the Council to make enquiries for several hours on the day he presented.
18. I asked the Council to:
• apologise to Mr X in line with our Guidance on Remedies section on effective apologies; and
• pay Mr X:
1. £150 for three nights’ bed and breakfast accommodation (which he paid at a rate of £350 per week); and
2. £150 to recognise the distress the matter caused
19. The Council agreed to take these steps within one month of my decision.
20. The Council’s agreement to carry out these actions means it would not be proportionate for us to investigate the matter further. I am satisfied with the action the Council proposes to take to recognise the injustice we would likely say had been caused by its actions if we investigated the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to use his statutory right of appeal to the county court about the Council’s decision he was not homeless, and the Council has agreed to take suitable action to remedy the injustice we would likely say was caused to Mr X for the parts of his complaint we could investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman