Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her homelessness applications from March 2023 onwards and its communication.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X contacted the Council for housing assistance in March 2023 when her rent fell into arrears. The Council assessed her application and decided the matter was a general housing problem. It wrote to her in August 2023 to explain this.
8. Miss X made a fresh homelessness application in October 2023 after she received a section 21 notice. The Council assessed this and accepted she was eligible for assistance. Documents shows it accepted the prevention duty i.e. a duty to prevent her becoming homeless. It also sent Miss X a letter informing her of this, its responsibilities and her right to request a review. It was reasonable for Miss X to seek a review of the Council’s decision if she disputed it.
9. The Council should have considered whether it was reasonable for Miss X to continue to occupy her property after the section 21 notice expired in January 2024. But any fault did not cause significant injustice at the time of its February 2024 complaint response, noting Miss X continued to remain in property until November 2024.
10. Miss X says the Council failed to follow through with timely reviews and updates following its assessment. In its complaint response of February 2024, the Council apologised to Miss X for its shortfalls in communication, assigned a new caseworker and outlined steps it would continue to take to prevent homelessness. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaints about the Council’s communication as any remaining injustice is not significant enough.
11. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s actions after February 2024 because it is premature. It is reasonable to allow the Council an opportunity to investigate and reply first.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman