Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of homelessness, a safeguarding alert, and related complaints. It would be reasonable for the complainant to take court action where it is available after the Council’s review decisions. There is otherwise not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s procedures or complaint response to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss G says for her brother, Mr H, the Council has failed properly to safeguard him from harm in temporary homelessness accommodation. Mr H and Miss G believe the supported housing accommodation is unsuitable due to other residents’ alleged drug use and behaviour, and the conduct of staff.

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 effect 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 we cannot achieve the result someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate. It 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)
4. 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 result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses to the complaints.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council had accepted a homelessness duty towards Mr H. It provided supported temporary accommodation because it assessed Mr H was not ready for independent accommodation. Mr H and Miss G asked the Council to review the suitability of the accommodation under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996. Under section 203 the Council confirmed it considered the accommodation was suitable and explained in detail why. It would be reasonable to expect Mr H, with Miss G’s support as needed, to appeal under section 204 of the Act to the county court against the decision if he considers the decision wrong in law.
8. Mr H failed to pay the charge for the accommodation because he believed it unsuitable for him. I do not know whether he did so on his own, or on advice from someone else, but the housing provider gave him notice to quit because he was in breach of the terms of his licence to occupy the accommodation.
9. The Council later decided to end its homelessness duty because 56 days had passed and Mr H had made himself intentionally homeless from accommodation it had confirmed as suitable. Mr H has a right to ask it to review its decision about his homlessness. It would then be reasonable for him to challenge it on a point of law under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996.
10. The Council separately confirmed Mr H has no assessed eligible needs for adult social care and support, so it had no duty under section 42 of the Care Act 2014 to enquire into the safeguarding matter Miss G told it about. But it decided to exercise its powers to enquire into it, in Mr H’s interests. It found Mr H was not at risk of harm or abuse. It confirmed that decision and the reasons for it in a complaint response. There is not enough evidence of procedural fault here to warrant us investigating and by law it is not open to us to question the result of the Council’s enquiries.
11. The Council’s letters set out in some detail what consideration it gave to its duties under Equality Act 2010 because of Mr H’s disability. There is no evidence of procedural fault in this for the Ombudsman to investigate. If Mr H or Miss G considers the Council has not met its Equality Act duties to Mr H it would be reasonable for them to make a discrimination claim in court.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss G’s complaint for Mr H because it would be reasonable for him to take court action where it is available after the Council’s review decisions, and because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s procedures or complaint response to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman