Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate his complaint about the priority awarded on the Council’s housing register because he had a right of review he could have used and because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in arranging interim accommodation when he became homeless. He said he was passed between several officers before accommodation was arranged.
2. Mr X also complained about the Council’s handling of his housing register application. He said he had to pay to get a GP letter to confirm his medical conditions and had not been able to bid successfully, despite being on the housing register for four years. He also said officers refused to assist him because he was in temporary accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Homelessness

8. Mr X approached the Council for assistance when he became homeless after a relationship ended. The Council carried out an assessment and decided it owed a duty to provide interim accommodation. Its record shows it discussed this with Mr X but he declined it. Instead, the Council agreed to refer him to a supported living project, and it says Mr X told it he would make his own arrangements in the meantime. Mr X moved to the supporting living accommodation a month later, following which the ended its homelessness duty because Mr X could stay there for up to two years.
9. We will not consider this part of the complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

Housing register application

10. The Council awarded Mr X band 2 priority in 2022. It explained he could ask for a review of its decision within 21 days if he disagreed with it, but he did not do so.
11. In 2024, Mr X provided a GP letter. The Council wrote to him in May 2024 to say it had considered the GP letter, but this did not change his priority band. It said he could ask for a review of its decision within 21 days if he disagreed with it. Mr X did not ask for a review. It also said that, as Mr X had mobility issues, it would request an occupational health (OT) assessment. The OT said Mr X needed a level access shower and the Council amended its records to reflect that.
12. Since then, the Council has offered a property to Mr X, which he has accepted.
13. We expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the event they are complaining about. Any complaint about the 2022 decision is therefore late. There is no indication that Mr X could not have complained to us earlier about that and no good reason for deciding to investigate that part of his complaint now. In any case, he had a right of review and it was reasonable for him to have exercised that right. Therefore, I will not consider that part of the complaint further.
14. Mr X also had the right to ask for a review of the decision in May 2024 and, again it was reasonable for him to have asked for a review. In any case, the Council’s allocation policy says he would not have got increased priority at that time because he was in temporary accommodation. The Council took appropriate action to obtain evidence of how his mobility affected his housing needs and, after receiving that, has made an offer of housing that Mr X has accepted. We will not investigate the complaint about the 2024 decisions because there is insufficient evidence of fault.
15. We recognise that applicants do wait for long periods for rehousing because the demand for social housing is far greater than the availability of such housing. The fact Mr X was waiting for four years does not, of itself, indicate any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because part of the complaint is late, because he had review rights it was reasonable for him to exercise and because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman