Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to complete a homeless assessment for him and failing to act on serious disrepair in his accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to complete a homeless assessment for him despite being aware it was not safe for him to remain in his property. He also complains the Council failed to act on the serious disrepair in his accommodation.

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 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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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. Mr X lives in a property registered as a HMO - houses in multiple occupation. Mr X complained about several matters of despair to his property.
7. In September 2023, the Council inspected Mr X’s property. Following the inspection, the Council issued an improvement notice to the HMO licence holder. The notice set out that remedial works were required as category one and two hazards had been identified in the property. The notice noted works were to be completed no later than April 2024.
8. In June and July 2024, the Council reinspected Mr X’s property. The Council confirmed it was satisfied the repairs had been completed to a satisfactory standard and that the HMO licence holder had complied with the notice. Therefore, the Council revoked the improvement notice.
9. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault with how the Council dealt with the reported disrepair issues. The Council appropriately inspected the property and took action to ensure the identified hazards were addressed. The Council explained why it decided to issue an improvement notice, rather than another enforcement route. The Council is entitled to make this decision and there is no evidence to suggest the Council did not properly consider its decision.
10. The Council also appropriately re-inspected the property once the improvement notice had expired and considered the notice had been complied with. Again, it is a matter for the Council to decide whether it is satisfied the improvement notice has been complied with. As there is no evidence of fault with how the Council made its decision, we cannot find fault with the decision itself.
11. Regarding Mr X’s homeless application, the Council said it initially arranged for an assessment to be completed with Mr X in November 2023. However, Mr X did not attend. In March 2024, the Council attempted to complete an assessment again but Mr X again did not attend.
12. In April 2024, the Council completed its homeless assessment. It issued its decision that Mr X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness. Reasons given:
• Mr X continued to have a right or permission to occupy the accommodation.
• The accommodation continued to be available to Mr X.
• The accommodation was reasonable for Mr X to continue to carry on occupying. Council had considered the comments Mr X made about why he couldn’t continue to occupy the accommodation.
13. The Council told Mr X of his right to request a review of its decision.
14. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. The delay in completing the homeless assessment appears to be due to Mr X not attending the meetings arranged to enable the assessment to take place. We could not find fault with the Council for this as this was outside their control.
15. Further, the Council had appropriately considered Mr X’s application and the reasons he put forward as to why he felt he could not continue to occupy the property. As the Council has properly considered the matter, it is allowed to reach a decision on whether it satisfied Mr X is homeless or threatened with homelessness. In this case, the Council has outlined its reasons for why it was satisfied Mr X was neither.
16. If Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision, he had the right to request a review of the decision and it is reasonable to have expected Mr X to follow that process.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman