Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Ms X’s homelessness application. The Council has agreed a proportionate remedy for Ms X’s injustice which removes the need to investigate.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council wrongly considered she was not in priority need so did not offer interim accommodation to her. Ms X says that as a result she was left homeless and caused significant distress. Ms X also says she had to accept unsuitable accommodation to ensure she was not homeless.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X made a homelessness application. The Council considered Ms X was homeless and accepted the relief duty. However, the Council did not consider Ms X was in priority need so it did not offer interim accommodation to her.
6. Ms X ‘s representative requested a review of the Council’s decision that she was not in priority need. The Council withdrew its priority need decision for further consideration. The Council then sent an email to Ms X’s representative advising that it remained of the view that Ms X was not in priority need. It did not issue a formal written decision.
7. Ms X moved into accommodation arranged by her representative.
8. The Council ended the relief duty. It did not issue a decision on whether it owed the main housing duty to Ms X.
9. If we were to investigate Ms X’s complaint, it is likely we would find fault causing injustice to her.
10. The Council did not issue a formal decision with review rights to Ms X when it again decided she was not in priority need. It did not respond to Ms X’s representative’s request for a review of this decision. The Council did not consider if it should accept the main housing duty to Ms X when it ended the relief duty. As a result, Ms X was caused distress and uncertainty as she cannot know what the outcome would have been if the Council had considered the main housing duty. She was also denied the opportunity to exercise her right of review in the event the Council did not accept the main housing duty.
11. We therefore asked the Council to remedy Ms X’s injustice by considering if it should accept the main housing duty for her. The Council agreed to take this action. It also offered to apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic payment of £750 to her to acknowledge the distress caused.

Back to top

Agreed Action

12. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint by considering if it owes the main housing duty to Ms X and notifying her of the decision in writing. The Council will also notify Ms X of her right to seek a review of the decision if she disagrees with it. The Council will also apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic payment of £750 to acknowledge the distress caused. The Council will take this action within one month of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We have upheld this complaint. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman