Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council carried out his homelessness interview and handled his complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and we could not add to the Council’s investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the way the Council conducted his homelessness interview; he said the interviewing officer’s conduct and the setting of the interview made him feel discriminated against and unsafe, and that the Council incorrectly requested information about his immigration status.
2. Mr X also complained the Council’s complaint process was not transparent and that it did not apply the data protection law correctly.
3. Mr X said as a result he was caused distress and his physical and mental health suffered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

5. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) considers data complaints. We normally expect complainants to refer data complaints to the ICO unless we decide there are good reasons they could not. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Eligibility for statutory homelessness assistance is determined by the applicant’s immigration and residence status. The Council was allowed to request relevant information from Mr X regarding his immigration status to enable it to correctly assess his homelessness application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this. We could not determine whether the Council breached the Equality Act and discriminated against Mr X; that can only be done by the courts. Therefore, we will not investigate this.
9. In its complaint responses, the Council explained that all homelessness interviews were held in the same interview/meeting room. It said its officer had acted professionally and followed the appropriate process and guidance during Mr X’s homelessness interview. It explained it was unable to share information about personnel matters related to its employees. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint as we could not add to the Council’s previous investigation.
10. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not apply data protection law correctly in response to his queries regarding officer training. If Mr X considers the Council’s is misapplying data protection law, it is reasonable for him to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office which is the appropriate body to consider such complaints.
11. We will also not investigate the Council’s complaints handling. The Council has considered the points he raised and provided a proportionate response. Although Mr X may not agree with the outcome, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it has responded to his concerns to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and we could not add to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman