Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint against the Council’s handling of his homelessness case. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault it’s decision-making to justify our involvement. It was reasonable for Mr Y to use the appeals procedure to challenge this decision

The complaint

1. Summary: Mr Y complained that the Council mishandled his homelessness application and discriminated against him under the Equality Act by ignoring reasonable adjustment requests.
   Mr Y also complained that the Council unreasonably delayed processing his complaints and obstructing his statutory right to review. He says the Council have made their decision based on incorrect information evidenced by his SAR request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended).

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. We considered the evidence submitted and correspondence between Mr Y and the Council and have determined there is no evidence of fault;
7. Mr Y says the subject access request proves that the Council made their decisions based on incorrect information. He says the documents show a data breach, a backdated call and an application he never submitted.
8. The Council offered Mr Y suitable accommodation in early May, and he was not contactable for a period of several weeks via phone and did not attend any viewing leading the Council to discharge their duties.
9. The Council acknowledged their failure to consider Mr Y’s reasonable adjustments and respond to his Stage One complaint. They apologised in their Stage 2 response and provided a remedy by extending his temporary accommodation offer until early July. Mr Y left temporary accommodation in early September despite signing a tenancy agreement in June.
10. The evidence shows that a Household Support Fund application referral was made on his behalf to support him with furnishings costs. The other inconsistencies appear to be administrative errors. Mr Y applied for a Section 203 review 36 days late, the reviewing officer used his discretion under s.202 93 of the Housing Act, to extend the time limit. The previous decision that the accommodation was suitable, was upheld. The Council referred him to the County Court to appeal this decision.
11. Mr Y had a statutory right to appeal to the county court about the Council’s decision on accommodation suitability. The restriction in paragraph three therefore applies. Mr Y could have used this right of appeal and so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

Recommend for closure

We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint against the Council’s handling of his homelessness case. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault it’s decision-making to justify our involvement. It was reasonable for Mr Y to use the appeals procedure to challenge this decision

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman