Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s intentional homeless decision as the Council has now overturned its decision. Any outstanding injustice is not significant enough to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision that he became intentionally homeless. He says he wants a flat and does not want to be on the streets.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvemen.t (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X.
4. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Since Mr X complained to us, the Council has overturned the intentional homeless decision, accepted that it owes Mr X the main housing duty and offered him temporary accommodation.
6. As the Council has now overturned the decision Mr X complained to us about, I am satisfied that further investigation by us is not warranted and any outstanding injustice is not significant enough to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has overturned the homelessness decision Mr X complained to us about. Any outstanding injustice is not significant enough to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman