The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a homelessness application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into how the Council reached its decision not to offer interim accommodation or financial help to Mr X. The Council offered an appropriate and proportionate remedy for Mr X’s loss of opportunity to seek a review of its decision that he was not in priority need.
The complaint
Mr X complains that the Council: Wrongly refused to offer accommodation to him when he became homeless.
Failed to provide financial assistance to help him buy furniture for his property.
Mr X says that as a result he had to sleep in his car which affected his mental and physical health conditions and caused significant distress. Mr X also says he has avoidable debt as he had to pay for hotels and due to the costs of furnishing his property.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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) 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)).
We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
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 X made a homelessness application as his landlord ended his tenancy. The Council accepted the prevention duty and then the relief duty when Mr X left the property. It did not offer interim accommodation to Mr X. This is because the Council did not consider he was in priority need. So, it did not have a duty to offer interim accommodation to him.
Mr X then found a property to rent. Mr X asked the Council for financial help with furnishing his property. The Council said it did not offer such payments.
Mr X complained to the Council about it failing to provide interim accommodation while he was homeless. Mr X considered the Council should have provided accommodation due to his health conditions. Mr X also complained about the Council’s refusal to offer financial help with furnishing his property.
In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council said Mr X did not qualify for interim accommodation as he was not in priority need. But it should have issued a non priority need decision to him. This would have given Mr X the right to ask for a review of the decision. The Council offered a payment of £250 to Mr X as a remedy. The Council also said it did not offer financial help with furniture.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not providing interim accommodation. We are mindful that the Council’s complaint response said Mr X’s medical assessment found him to be in priority need. But the Council’s records show the medical assessment concluded Mr X was not in priority need. The Council’s records also show officers considered Mr X was not in priority need. So, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decisions that Mr X was not in priority need and not to offer interim accommodation to justify an investigation.
The Council did not issue a formal decision telling Mr X that he was not in priority need. This meant Mr X was not given his statutory rights to seek a review of the Council’s decision and appeal to the county court. We cannot know, even on balance, what the outcome would have been if Mr X had the opportunity to use his statutory review rights. But the Council’s payment of £250 is a sufficient and proportionate remedy to acknowledge Mr X’s missed opportunity. It is also in line with our Guidance on Remedies.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing to offer financial help with furnishing his property. The Council explained it did not offer such help. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into how the Council reached its decision not to offer interim accommodation or financial help to him. The Council offered an appropriate and proportionate remedy for Mr X’s loss of opportunity to seek a review of its decision that he was not in priority need.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman