Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness case. This is because investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome from what the Council has already provided.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her homelessness case. She says there were delays, poor communication and that the Council assessed her homelessness application incorrectly.
2. Ms X says she was forced to secure alternative private accommodation due to the Council’s failures. She wants the Council to acknowledge its failures, apologise and provide her financial redress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law 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)
5. The County Court deals with appeals about homelessness decisions.
6. 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:

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

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Ms X.
8. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council decided Ms X was not homeless. Ms X asked the Council for a review, and it upheld its decision on review. Ms X complains about the Council’s reasoning for its decision and says it wrongly assessed her current circumstances, rather than her circumstances at the time she first approached the Council for homelessness assistance.
10. The Council’s review decision carried a right of appeal of appeal to the County Court. If Ms X believed the decision was wrong, then she could have appealed to the County Court. The Ombudsman is not an alternative appeal body. I have seen no evidence to suggest it was unreasonable for her to appeal. Therefore, I will not investigate this aspect of her complaint.

Handling of homelessness case

11. The Council considered Ms X's concerns about delay and poor communication through its complaints procedure. It acknowledged where there was fault in its handling of her homelessness application and apologised for this. It also offered Ms X £150 in recognition of any inconvenience she experienced.
12. I recognise Ms X remains dissatisfied with the Council's response. However, I am satisfied the Council's response shows it thoroughly investigated the issues she raised, acknowledged the fault it identified and took appropriate and proportionate action to remedy that fault. Further investigation by us would not add to the Council's investigation or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it was reasonable for her to appeal the Council’s decision to the County Court. We will not investigate the remaining matters because further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome from what the Council has already provided.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman