Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his homelessness application as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed to deal with his homelessness applications. Mr X says that as a result he is living in a car which is affecting his mental health.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In early 2024, Mr X made a homelessness application. The Council carried out a homelessness assessment for Mr X. It asked him to provide more documents so it could decide if it owed a homelessness duty to him. Mr X provided some documents, but the Council said it needed additional information.
6. Mr X complained to the Council that it had not progressed his homelessness application. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint at stage one of its complaint procedure. The Council explained it was waiting for information from Mr X and that it could not progress his application without it.
7. Mr X requested his complaint be escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint several months later. The Council explained it could not progress his homelessness application without further information about his homelessness circumstances. It apologised for the delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint and offered a payment of £200 to acknowledge the distress caused to him.
8. Mr X made a further complaint. The Council reiterated that it had been unable to progress his homelessness application as he had not provided the required information. Officers contacted Mr X again about his homelessness application.
9. We will not investigate how the Council considered Mr X’s homelessness application. Mr X did not provide the information requested by the Council to progress his application. The Council’s records show it tried to contact Mr X by telephone in June 2024 and by email in July 2024 to chase the information. So, it made reasonable attempts to contact Mr X. There is therefore insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application to justify an investigation.
10. The Council apologised to Mr X for the delay in responding to his stage two complaint and offered a payment of £200 for the distress caused to him. On balance, the delay in dealing with Mr X’s complaint did not prevent the Council from progressing Mr X’s homelessness application as it was waiting for information from Mr X. So, the Council’s offered remedy is reasonable and proportionate to acknowledge the distress caused to Mr X by the delay in replying to his complaint. It is also in accordance with our Guidance on Remedies. An investigation of Mr X’s complaint will not achieve more for him.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his homelessness application as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman