Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s assessments of her homelessness applications. Part of her complaint is late with no good reason to investigate it now. On the part of her complaint that is not late, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s assessments of her homelessness applications. She says the Council’s decisions have caused instability and left her at risk of homelessness. She wants the Council to accept her homelessness application.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X complains about the Council’s assessment of her homelessness application which is older than 12 months. This makes this part of her complaint late.
8. If Miss X was unhappy with the Council’s assessment of her application at the time then it would have been reasonable for her to complain to us then. I see no reason why she could not have complained sooner. Therefore, I will not investigate this part of her complaint.

Recent homelessness application

9. The Council refused Miss X’s most recent homelessness application because it decided she was not at risk of homelessness.
10. Councils must make enquiries and decide whether they owe someone a homelessness duty if they have reason to believe the person is homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days (section 184 of the Housing Act 1996). If a council decides this threshold is not met, it does not have to make further enquiries. If we are satisfied a council properly decided it had no reason to believe, and has recorded its reasons, we are unlikely to find fault.
11. The evidence I have seen shows that when Miss X approached the Council, she was living in accommodation that was available to her for longer than 56 days. She did not provide evidence that she was asked to leave earlier. The Council told Miss X she could approach them again if her circumstances changed.
12. I am satisfied the Council properly decided it had no reason to believe Miss X was homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days. It has recorded the reasons for its decision and explained this to Miss X. There is not enough evidence of fault on this point to justify us investigating

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because one part is late with no good reason to investigate it now and there is not enough evidence of fault on the other part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman