Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in helping Mr X when he was made homeless. This is because the Council has provided an appropriate remedy internally, and an investigation by this office would not add to that.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed in providing him with interim accommodation when he was made homeless. Mr X says the Council caused him distress and financial loss.
2. Mr X is seeking a further remedy from the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(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 contacted the Council when he was evicted by his landlord in June 2024.
7. The Council accepted Mr X was homeless and that it owed him a duty to provide him with interim accommodation but delayed in doing so.
8. In the meantime, Mr X paid for accommodation until the Council took over in July 2024.
9. The Council said it was unable to make a direct payment to Mr X to reimburse the costs of his accommodation during the Council’s delay.
10. Mr X had an outstanding bill for his food at the hotel he was staying at, and the Council paid this bill in place of a reimbursement of the cost of his stay. This covered most, but not all of the cost to Mr X.
11. Mr X gave the Council reasons he wished to remain in the hotel he had chosen to stay in. The Council says it would have offered to accommodate Mr X at a cheaper hotel, but as he had already been distressed it agreed to pay the higher cost of his chosen accommodation until the end of August 2024.
12. The cost of Mr X’s food bill which was paid by the Council, together with the difference in cost of his chosen hotel cover the cost of accommodation paid by Mr X. It also covers an additional payment of £445.
13. If we were to investigate this further, it is likely we would find fault as the delay is accepted by the Council.
14. We would consider the injustice to Mr X and whether a remedy is due. It is unlikely that any remedy we would recommend would exceed what the Council has already provided.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has already provided an appropriate proportionate remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman