The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X’s homelessness application. This is because the Council arranged a review after Mr X complained and there is insufficient evidence of an outstanding injustice significant enough to justify our involvement. Further, if Mr X disagreed with the outcome of the review decision it was reasonable to expect him to use his legal appeal rights.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council failed properly to assess his homelessness application and made an incorrect statement in its decision letter.
Mr X says this caused injustice because he was homeless at the time and suffering significant health difficulties.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
People may complain to us about injustice caused by: ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ by a public organisation we could investigate; or the actions of an organisation in connection with privately arranged adult social care.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1) or section 34C(1)(a)).
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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), or section 34B(8)).
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) The Council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained about the Council's homelessness assessment and refusal to provide interim accommodation. He said the Council's decision letter wrongly stated that medical information had been considered. Mr X says he did not provide any medical evidence at that stage.
The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint. It accepts the reference to medical evidence in its original decision letter was incorrect and apologised. It also said it did not affect the homelessness decision because Mr X had not provided any medical evidence.
The Council advised Mr X that any medical evidence he wished to provide now would be considered through the statutory review process. It subsequently confirmed a review of the homelessness decision had been arranged and that any supporting evidence Mr X wanted to provide would be considered.
The law means we can choose only to investigate a complaint where the person has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the body complained about. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
I recognise the administrative error in the decision letter affected Mr X. But the Council remedied the effect of the error by arranging a review to which Mr X could provide any medical evidence. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of an outstanding injustice to warrant us investigating.
While I understand Mr X is now accommodated, if he was unhappy with the outcome of the review decision, he could have taken the Council to court. The Ombudsman normally expects complainants to make use of appeal rights provided to them under the law.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. And Mr X had a right of appeal on the review decision that was reasonable to expect him to use.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman