Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness application and its offer of interim accommodation. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement, and in any case, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council treated him and communicated with him when he approached it for homelessness support. Mr X said it also provided him with unsuitable interim accommodation.
2. Mr X said the Council’s actions led to him and his partner rough sleeping, and this caused distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained about the Council’s actions after he approached it as a homeless person. Mr X said the Council’s subsequent actions led to him and his partner rough sleeping for a short time. Mr X also said the Council went on to provide him with unsuitable interim accommodation and are yet to provide him with social housing.
7. The Council said it made provisional arrangements for Mr X to temporarily return to his existing accommodation, but these arrangements then failed. Mr X was then unable to contact the Council to make alternative arrangements, which led to him and his partner sleeping rough.
8. Mr X also said the Council went on to provide him with interim accommodation which was unsuitable and he refused the offer. Because Mr X refused this accommodation, the Councils duty to offer it ended. However, it continued to offer Mr X the relief duty.
9. Mr X now wants the Council to provide him with affordable social housing.
10. I consider the Councils actions when Mr X first presented as homeless to be appropriate. It made provisional arrangements for the immediate period in a bid to prevent Mr X’s homelessness, though these unfortunately failed due to circumstances it could not foresee.
11. The Council acknowledged its communications with Mr X broke down during this time and offered him a £100 symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. This action is appropriate.
12. Finally, it is unlikely we would find fault the Council ended its duty to provide Mr X interim accommodation. Mr X could have accepted the Council’s initial offer and asked it to consider reviewing the suitability of the accommodation.
13. Finally, Mr X wants the Council to make a property available for him. Currently the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. For this reason, we cannot tell the Council it should provide Mr X with a property.
14. For these reasons, I consider there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement, nor is there any worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating, given we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman