The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council delaying in issuing a new homelessness decision. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy so an investigation would not achieve more for Mr Y.
The complaint
Ms X complained on behalf of Mr Y. She complained that the Council failed to issue a new homelessness decision for Mr Y following its decision to quash its earlier homelessness decision. Ms X says that the delay caused significant distress to Mr Y and caused him to accrue rent arrears.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr Y made a homelessness application to the Council. It decided he was not homeless. Mr Y then requested a review of the Council’s decision. The Council decided it needed to consider Mr Y’s circumstances further, so it quashed its decision that he was not homeless. It said it would make a new decision in due course.
In response to our initial enquiries, the Council acknowledged it has delayed in issuing a new homelessness decision to Mr Y. The Council has agreed to issue a homelessness decision shortly. It has also offered to make a payment of £1000 to acknowledge the distress caused to Mr Y by the delay.
Mr Y considers the delay caused him to incur rent arrears. We cannot know what the Council’s decision on Mr Y’s homelessness application would have been if it had considered the matter without delay. So, it is unlikely we could say, even on balance, that the delay caused Mr Y to incur rent arrears.
The Council’s agreed remedy is therefore proportionate, and it is in line with our Guidance on Remedies for remedying distress. So, we will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint as an investigation would not achieve any more for him.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint as the Council has offered a proportionate remedy and an investigation would not achieve more for him.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman