Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Mr X was intentionally homeless as he sought a review of the Council’s decision. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council delaying in dealing with his evidence about its decision as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council wrongly considered him to be intentionally homeless and delayed in dealing with information he provided to show its decision was wrong. Mr X says that as a result he was forced to move into unsafe accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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, any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. In July 2024, Mr X made a homelessness application. The Council accepted the relief duty and offered interim accommodation to Mr X. In August 2024 the Council ended the relief duty and issued a decision notifying Mr X that he was intentionally homeless. The Council reached this decision as his previous landlord had evicted him. The Council gave notice to Mr X to leave his interim accommodation.
5. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision. Around three days before Mr X was due to leave the interim accommodation, he told the Council his previous landlord had withdrawn his eviction notice. Mr X then left his interim accommodation and he moved into other accommodation.
6. The Council considered Mr X’s review request and decided he was not homeless as he had accommodation. The Council later accepted Mr X was homeless.
7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that he was intentionally homeless. We generally expect people to seek a review of a council’s decision to end a homelessness duty rather than investigating the Council’s decision. Mr X sought a review of the Council’s decision.
8. I am mindful Mr X told the Council that his previous landlord had withdrawn his eviction notice shortly before he was due to leave the interim accommodation. Mr X also provided evidence to show the Council initially sent his review request to officers who were not dealing with the review. The Council was entitled to treat Mr X’s information as part of his request for a review of its decision that he was intentionally homeless as it was relevant to that decision. The law provides the Council should deal with review requests within eight weeks. Mr X provided the information well before the eight week timescale expired. It is therefore unlikely we would find the Council to be at fault for not considering the information about Mr X’s eviction before he left the interim accommodation. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman