Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing benefit for supported accommodation. There is not significant enough direct injustice to warrant investigation. Nobody who might have a direct injustice has authorised Mr X to represent them. It is not our role to oversee the Council’s activities generally.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained from an organisation providing supported accommodation for homeless people. He complained the way the Council was reviewing supported accommodation schemes’ eligibility for housing benefit (HB) meant decisions about eligibility were delayed without a clear timescale, in turn delaying decisions about HB payments for residents or potential of supported accommodation. Mr X stated this meant his organisation was not able to house homeless people for whom the Council wanted such placements. He said homeless people were therefore not getting suitable accommodation and the Council was failing to tackle homelessness properly.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide any direct injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We do not necessarily investigate every allegation a council is at fault. As paragraph 2 explained, we will only investigate where the alleged fault caused the person complaining a significant enough direct injustice to warrant investigation. Mr X’s complaint to us did not claim any specific direct injustice to his organisation. There might be an argument the Council’s alleged faults meant the organisation did not have the residents and HB income it expected to have. However, any such impact would not stem directly from the Council’s actions. With any placement and resulting HB claim, the Council’s direct relationship is with the claimant (the resident). The accommodation provider is a third party. Decisions about whether a scheme is eligible for HB and any delays deciding claims might affect the provider, but such an effect would be indirect, not a direct causal link. For these reasons, the matters complained of have not caused Mr X and his organisation significant enough direct injustice for us to investigate.
7. The Council’s alleged fault might directly affect homeless people if they did not have suitable accommodation they should have had. I realise Mr X’s main concern was not about his organisation but about homeless people who needed supported accommodation, which he feared they were not getting. However, no individual claiming such an injustice has authorised Mr X to complain to us. So we cannot investigate a complaint about possible direct injustice to any such person.
8. I appreciate Mr X wants the Council to change how its housing benefit and homelessness services work on the matters complained of. However, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to oversee or regulate councils’ activities generally.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The matters complained of have not caused his organisation a significant enough direct injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to pursuing the complaint. Nobody claiming a direct injustice has authorised Mr X to complain on their behalf. It is not our role to oversee councils’ activities generally.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman