Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s homelessness service. This is because there is no evidence of any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. In summary, Mr X complains the Council lacks policies, procedures and training needed to run a homelessness service. Mr X says he has been caused stress and extra work.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
3. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
• there is another body better placed to consider the complaint

(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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says there is a conflict between the Council saying in its Freedom of Information response that policies do not exist for the homelessness service but then saying in its complaint response this information does exist.
7. The Council’s complaint response to Mr X rejects his allegation that it operates an unlawful service. It explains the legislation and the Code of Guidance it follows alongside the operation of its triage system for taking homeless applications followed up with appointments with a named officer.
8. The Council points to its extra actions taken over and above its usual work practices to accommodate Mr X’s reasonable adjustments due to his health condition. It found it has not been able to progress Mr X’s application due to insufficient information despite its attempts to retrieve information via other methods such as a telephone call and a paper assessment. However, it confirmed it had arranged an appointment to progress his application and was awaiting an advocacy organisation to confirm if it could attend Mr X’s appointment in line with his request.
9. The Council’s complaint response signposts Mr X to the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) instead of our service.
10. We will not investigate. While the Council were wrong to signpost Mr X to the HOS there is insufficient evidence of Mr X being caused a significant injustice overall. The Council has explained the process and policy for homelessness applicants adequately and there is also information available on its website. That the information does not meet Mr X’s expectations does not mean the Council has acted with fault.
11. If Mr X is dissatisfied with the response to his Freedom of Information request, he can raise this with the Information Commissioners Office. It is better placed to consider as the regulator for information rights matters.
12. Mr X has sent in a second more detailed complaint about the progression of his homelessness application. That is a different complaint to the general one the Council has investigated here and is premature under our procedures.
13. Mr X also complains about a housing benefit issue but that has been made up as a separate complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman