Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide interim accommodation to Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify an investigation. The Council provided an appropriate remedy for distress caused by a delay in contacting Mr X. An investigation would not achieve more.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council wrongly refused to provide interim accommodation to him as it failed to consider his vulnerabilities when considering if he was in priority need. Mr X says that, as a result, he was forced to sleep in his car.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
7. Examples of applicants in priority need include people with dependent children; pregnant women and people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.
8. Mr X made a homelessness application. The Council carried out a homelessness assessment with Mr X. The Council accepted the relief duty but it did not provide interim accommodation to him. The Council’s records note the assessing officer told Mr X that she did not consider him to be in priority need. The Council provided Mr X with information and guidance on looking for accommodation.
9. Mr X made a complaint to the Council about its decision that he was not in priority need. In response, the Council acknowledged it delayed in responding to Mr X when he submitted medical information. It apologised to Mr X for the delay. The Council also said it had reviewed Mr X’s case file, including the medical information. But it did not consider Mr X to be significantly more vulnerable than other people made homeless. It therefore considered Mr X was not in priority need and it did not have a duty to provide interim accommodation.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Council’s records and response to Mr X’s complaint show it considered all the relevant information when considering if he was in priority need. This included the medical information provided by Mr X. So, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify an investigation.
11. The Council acknowledged that it delayed in contacting Mr X after he provided medical information. The Council’s apology is an appropriate and proportionate remedy for the distress caused to Mr X by the delay in contacting him. An investigation would not achieve more.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision not provide interim accommodation to Mr X. The Council provided an appropriate remedy for the distress caused to Mr X by its delay in contacting him after he provided medical information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman