Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly advised his son Mr Y to claim universal credit when he applied for homelessness assistance, a security officer mistreated him, he was wrongfully arrested, and about poor complaint handling. We find no fault regarding the homelessness assistance and have ended the investigation into the other parts of his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his son Mr Y’s application for homelessness assistance. He complains in particular:
1. The Council wrongly advised Mr Y to claim universal credit in August 2023.
2. A security officer working for the Council mistreated him and Mr Y when they visited Council offices in December 2023.
3. The Council had poor complaint handling when it took nine months to respond to his first complaint and then signposted him to the wrong Ombudsman service.
2. He says the Council’s wrong advice meant he lost about £500 in benefits, the abuse caused wrongful arrest and distress, and the complaint handling caused significant time and trouble.
3. He wants the Council to pay back his lost benefit money, get his criminal record cleared up, and compensate him for the emotional distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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 provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
7. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

8. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
9. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

10. I have investigated from August 2023 when Mr Y first asked the Council for homelessness assistance, until April 2025 when Mr X complained to us.
11. Matters before April 2024 are late because it took Mr X more than 12 months to complain to us. I have decided the Council’s delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint, and its failure to signpost Mr X to us, are good reasons to exercise my discretion to investigate the late elements.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

14. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
15. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

16. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
17. What happened
18. This is a summary of key events. I have not listed everything that happened. I have considered all the evidence and information Mr X and the Council provided.
19. Mr Y is a young person that lived at home with Mr X.
20. In August 2023 Mr Y asked the Council for homelessness assistance. He attended an assessment interview with a council officer. Mr X also attended the interview.
21. Mr X and Mr Y told the Council Mr Y was threatened with homelessness. Council records show it advised Mr Y he would be unable to afford accommodation on his own, based on his income. It told him his income would be a factor in any offer of social housing. The Council recorded they discussed universal credit and that Mr Y would look at applying for it.
22. Mr X said Mr Y then made an appointment at the benefits office to enquire about universal credit. Mr X said the benefits office stopped the child tax credits he was receiving, from the end of August, because of Mr Y’s enquiry. He said he lost about £500 because of the benefit office’s decision.
23. In December Mr X and Mr Y visited the Council offices to speak to the council officer from the interview in August. Mr X said the council officer was not available and several officers gave inconsistent reasons why.
24. Mr X said he tried to give relevant information about being penalised by the benefits office as a result of bad advice from the Council. He said a security officer was obnoxious, foul mouthed, interrupted him, and tried to remove him and Mr Y from the premises.
25. The police arrived. They arrested Mr X and took him into custody.
26. A short time later in December, Mr X complained to the Council at stage one of its complaint procedure. He complained Mr Y was given incorrect advice about universal credit, and about the behaviour of the security officer.
27. The Council had not responded to Mr X’s complaint so he chased it up by email three times in August 2024.
28. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage one complaint in September. This was about nine months after his complaint.
29. It described its investigation into his complaint about the security officer. It said it found no evidence to support the complaint. It also responded to his complaint about advice during the assessment interview. It said it did not provide welfare benefits advice. It said it was legally obliged to assess a person’s income, expenditure, and ability to afford accommodation. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint.
30. The Council also said Mr X could ask a different Ombudsman service to review his complaint and provided contact details.
31. Mr X promptly asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two.
32. He said he also raised a complaint with the other Ombudsman service at the same time.
33. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage two in October. It said it had reviewed its response at stage one and did not uphold his complaints about the security officer or assessment interview. It apologised for the delays in responding to his complaint at stage one and offered £200 to acknowledge the time and trouble it had caused.
34. Mr X said the other Ombudsman service contacted him in April 2025 and said it was not the correct organisation to review his complaint. Mr X complained to us shortly afterwards.

Analysis and findings

35. I refer to each part of Mr X’s complaint in turn below.

a) Complaint the Council wrongly advised Mr Y to claim universal credit in August 2023

36. I have considered the Council’s records of the assessment interview it held with Mr Y in August 2023, and a personalised housing plan it sent to Mr Y after it accepted the prevention duty.
37. The record of the assessment interview shows it assessed the circumstances that caused Mr Y to be threatened with homelessness, his housing need and what accommodation would be suitable for him, and the support that would be necessary for him to have and sustain suitable accommodation.
38. I have seen no evidence the Council explicitly advised Mr Y to claim universal credit. The evidence shows it discussed universal credit with reference to Mr Y’s current income and the unaffordability of the specific type of property he wanted.
39. I find the Council’s discussion of universal credit with Mr Y was relevant and appropriate to its duty to assess Mr Y’s application, and to identify practical and reasonable steps for the Council and Mr Y to take to help him secure suitable accommodation. I find the Council acted in accordance with the Homelessness Code of Guidance in doing so.
40. For this reason I find no fault in the actions of the Council for this part of Mr X’s complaint.

b) Complaint a security guard working for the Council mistreated him

41. The Council described its investigation into this part of the complaint in its stage one complaint response. I find its investigation was appropriately detailed. For this reason I have decided, on the balance of probabilities, I could not add to the Council’s investigation, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
42. Mr X said he wants the clearing of his criminal record as an outcome of this complaint. We do not have the power to achieve this outcome.
43. For these reasons I have decided to stop investigating this part of Mr X’s complaint. My decision is in line with paragraphs 6 and 7 above.

c) Complaint the Council had poor complaint handling

44. The Council accepted fault for its poor complaint handling in its complaint responses.
45. It apologised to Mr X and offered him £200 for the injustice, which took the form of time and trouble.
46. I have considered our Guidance on Remedies and have decided I would not offer a higher remedy.
47. For this reason I have decided to stop investigating this part of Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. My decision is in line with paragraphs 6 and 7 above.
48. I invite the Council to repeat the offer of the symbolic payment if Mr X has not already accepted it.

Back to top

Decision

49. For the reasons explained in the analysis section I find no fault for part a) of the complaint. I have decided to stop investigating part b) because I could not add to the investigation, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and I cannot achieve an outcome Mr X wants, and part c) because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman