Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s homelessness support. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the actions of the Council’s Housing Service after it accepted a homelessness application from his. He said it:
• would not take up the lease on a property for him,
• made pointless referrals,
• did not provide a support worker as agreed,
• did not provide support with storage,
• did not consider a request for a review of his housing banding,
• forced him to stay in accommodation he could not afford,
• sent him information in formats he could not access.

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.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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 do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council for the following reasons.
8. We previously investigated Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his homelessness application. Part of this complaint was around the Council’s contact with Mr X’s landlord, and the possibility of them registering the property as a House of Multiple Occupation. Mr X’s current complaint the Council will not take up a lease with his landlord and rent the property back to him, is akin to matters we have previously considered. In addition, it is not an action we can direct the Council to take.
9. In the Council’s complaint response, it said it had referred Mr X to Adult Social Care for a Care Assessment, as he needed extra assistance. It said Adult Social Care had made a referral for a Floating Support Officer. There is nothing to suggest the Council’s Housing Service made an unnecessary referral for Mr X, or its referrals caused him a significant injustice.
10. The Council said it had not provided support with storage to Mr X because he had not accessed temporary accommodation. If he decided to access temporary accommodation, it would make a referral for storage support. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
11. The Council said it confirmed Mr X’s banding on the housing register in July 2023, when it accepted the relief duty. It said it had no evidence he asked for a review at the time. It also said that the complaints process was not the correct route for challenging housing banding decisions. Any complaint about the Council’s July 2023 banding decision is late, and we will not investigate. Mr X will need to ask the Council for a review, if his circumstances have changed.
12. The Council said it had told Mr X about temporary accommodation, but he chose to remain in his current accommodation. It said if that was no-longer suitable, he would need to provide evidence of this. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
13. The Council said it sent Mr X its decision letters in a format he could access. It said following a Subject Access Request, it had converted fields into an accessible format to Mr X, it had also posted the documents to Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman