Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s responses to her homelessness applications and her local welfare fund application. Miss X had a right of review which it was reasonable for her to use, and there is otherwise not enough evidence of fault causing injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has not provided her with appropriate homelessness assistance or local welfare funding. She says this has caused her financial and health issues. Miss X wants the Council to provide her with appropriate housing and welfare support and improve its service.

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 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 remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it was reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, and I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I have reviewed the Council’s complaint responses, and its decision letters and case records for Miss X’s homelessness applications referenced in the complaint responses.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X complained about the Council’s decision that she had made herself intentionally homeless and so was not eligible for housing support. As a consequence, the Council asked her to leave the temporary accommodation which it had provided whilst it considered her application. The Council said it issued a decision letter to Miss X which outlined she had 21 days to request a statutory review of this decision. It said although Miss X requested a review, it was made late and so it did not accept her request.
7. We will not investigate this part of Miss X’s complaint. It was reasonable for Miss X to use her review rights and I can see no good reason she did not do so in time so we will not investigate this matter further.
8. In its complaint response, the Council said Miss X had approached the Council for homelessness assistance a further three times since its decision. The Council said it decided not to accept a further homelessness application from Miss X because she had not provided any relevant new facts or any new facts were trivial.
9. In its case records, the Council noted the steps it had taken in response to Miss X’s applications, the information it had gathered, and its decision-making. It confirmed its decisions and reasoning to Miss X in each of its outcome letters within one to two working days of her applications.
10. We will not investigate this part of Miss X’s complaint. The Council has evidenced its consideration of Miss X’s homelessness applications and its decision-making, which appears in line with relevant statutory guidance. It also provided clear and timely outcomes to Miss X. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of Miss X’s homelessness applications to justify investigation.
11. Miss X also applied for a local household support fund. The Council did not respond to Miss X’s application within its published timescale. It apologised for this delay but rejected Miss X’s application because she was not a local resident following her eviction from the temporary accommodation. It said it offered Miss X alternative support appropriate to where she now lived, which she declined.
12. We will not investigate this final part of Miss X’s complaint. The Council’s apology for its delay is appropriate. It considered Miss X’s application against its eligibility criteria and was within its discretion to decide she was not eligible. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it reached its decision to justify an investigation. It also offered Miss X alternative support.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because she had a right of review against the intentionally homelessness decision which it was reasonable for her to use, and there is otherwise not enough evidence of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman