Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s homelessness application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that her homelessness application was not properly considered by the Council. Miss X says that, despite informing the officer that she was fleeing domestic abuse, she was told to select the 'family no longer willing to accommodate' option. The officer then issued a 'non-priority' decision, which triggered a chain of events that impacted her wellbeing.

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.
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. 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)

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. Miss X says she was told to incorrectly select the 'family no longer willing to accommodate' option on the homelessness application form instead of the domestic abuse option. The Council subsequently made the decision that Miss X did not have a priority need.
8. Upon Miss X’s request, the Council carried out a statutory review, which upheld the Council’s decision. Miss X was advised to appeal the decision at the County Court.
9. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that she did not have a priority need. This is because Miss X has the right to appeal to the County Court, and it is reasonable that she uses that right.
10. Miss X is unhappy with the advice given to her regarding her homeless application in 2020. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint as her concerns are about issues that happened more than 12 months ago, and I see no good reason why she could not have complained to us sooner.
11. Miss X states that a Housing Inclusion Officer coerced and blackmailed her; however, the officer does not recall the incident. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we could not add to the investigation. There are differing views as to what happened during the meeting, but we were not privy to the conversations that took place so could not reach a robust decision as to what was said.
12. The Council awarded Miss X relief duty after she declared that she had mental health issues and was on prescription medication. She was given temporary priority housing under the homelessness duty. Miss X has since been living at the family home, which she previously fled due to domestic abuse, and has been advised to make a new homeless application if needed.
13. I will not investigate these elements of Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
14. I will not investigate how the Council dealt with Miss X’s complaint about these matters. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss 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