Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council refused to support him when he became homeless because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council failed to support him when he became homeless. He said it failed to make a referral to a hostel or for social housing. He also complained an officer was rude and said the complaints process was ineffective.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X became homeless in early November 2023 after being evicted from his private rented accommodation. The Council carried out an assessment and accepted a relief duty. It prepared a personalised housing plan (PHP) for Mr X which set out what steps it would take and the steps Mr X should take.
6. Where a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless, eligible for housing assistance and in priority need, it has a duty to arrange emergency accommodation. The Council did not arrange emergency accommodation for Mr X as it decided his application did not meet that criteria. Although its records show Mr X told it he suffered from anxiety and depression, there is no indication from that this made him more vulnerable than others who become homeless. There is therefore insufficient evidence of fault in the Council-s decision-making process to justify investigating this further.
7. In its complaint response, the Council explained it did not refer him to a hostel because he did not meet the criteria. However, in the PHP it gave him information about finding a housing association property and about applying to its housing register so he could look for social housing.
8. In late November 2023, the Council transferred Mr X to its rough sleeping team. That team arrange accommodation under winter weather protocols. It also gave him access to other pathways out of homelessness, and he was subsequently offered supported accommodation.
9. In its complaint response, the Council said the officer complained about denied being rude. Further investigation would not determine whether the officer was rude or not as it is one person’s word against another’s. Therefore, we will not consider this further.
10. The Council responded to the various concerns Mr X raised through the complaints process. In any case, we would not investigate complaints about complaints handling if we are not investigating the underlying complaints. Therefore, we will not consider this aspect further.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman