Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled her homelessness case. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council delayed carrying out its statutory homelessness duties. She says it failed to provide suitable temporary accommodation beyond the fifty-six-day deadline and delayed its decision on its main housing duty. Mrs X says the Council acknowledged these delays but later minimised their impact. She also says the Council mishandled her complaint by initially treating it as a service request, which caused further avoidable delay. Mrs X considers the compensation offered does not adequately reflect the distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble caused. She says the Council’s faults caused significant stress and anxiety for her and her children and left them in prolonged uncertainty. Mrs X wants the Council to offer a higher financial remedy in line with Ombudsman guidance. She also wants the Council to improve its complaint handling, so it identifies and responds to complaints correctly in future.

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 involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X approached the Council as homeless. The Council accepted it owed Mrs X Relief Duty under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. It also made a referral for temporary accommodation, issued a personalised housing plan, and placed Mrs X in the highest priority band.
6. Mrs X later received a notice of eviction for her accommodation, which she gave to the Council. The Council advised her to remain in the property until eviction. On the day of eviction, Mrs X told the Council she would stay temporarily with a friend but would still need accommodation as soon as possible. Therefore, the Council did not offer interim accommodation under section 188 at that point.
7. The Council offered Mrs X temporary accommodation on several occasions. It considers these offers met Mrs X’s requirements and its legal duties. Mrs X declined these offers for reasons the Council accepted. The Council accepted the main housing duty for Mrs X. The Council made an offer of permanent accommodation, for which Mrs X requested a s202 review.
8. The Council accepted fault for delaying its offer of temporary accommodation. It said it should not expect someone to remain in a property until a court has issued a warrant or a writ to enforce an order of possession. It apologised and offered Mrs X compensation. It also said it would consider any evidenced costs arising from the delay and outlined service improvements it put in place to prevent future recurrence. The Council’s delay did not negatively impact Mrs X’s priority banding. Although Mrs X should have been offered temporary accommodation sooner, I consider it unlikely she missed out on any accommodation. The properties later offered were refused and Mrs X told the Council she had made alternative arrangements for short term accommodation. I am satisfied the Council has taken proportionate action to remedy any injustice Mrs X may have suffered because of its delay.
9. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. The Council accepted fault because it initially treated her complaint as a service request. It explained what had happened and apologised. It also confirmed it responded to her concerns within its published timescales. While this was fault, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman