Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response when Ms X sought assistance after temporarily losing access to her accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to properly assess and respond to her request for assistance when she was unable to access her home. She says the Council incorrectly treated the matter as a tenancy issue and failed to consider whether homelessness enquiries or interim accommodation were required, despite her reported vulnerabilities and the winter conditions.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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. Ms X contacted the Council after losing access to her accommodation because she had misplaced her keys. She says the Council should have treated her request as a homelessness application and considered providing emergency accommodation.
7. The Council considered the information provided by Ms X and consulted its homelessness service. It considered her reported disability and vulnerability.
8. The Council concluded Ms X remained the lawful tenant of accommodation she was entitled to occupy. It decided the issue was a temporary inability to gain access rather than homelessness. The Council therefore concluded there was no reason to believe Ms X was homeless. The Council also noted that responsibility for helping Ms X regain access to her accommodation rested primarily with her housing provider.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision simply because someone disagrees with it. Instead, we consider whether the Council followed a proper decision-making process and took relevant information into account.
10. The Council considered the information provided by Ms X, took account of the relevant factors and explained the reasons for its decision. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the Council’s decision making and so we could not question the outcome. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Final Decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response when Ms X sought assistance after losing access to her accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman