Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application because we could not add to the Council’s investigation. We will not investigate his complaint about the priority awarded on the Council’s housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to extend his emergency accommodation, which led to him being evicted, and delayed arranging an alternative. He also complained the Council placed him in the wrong priority band on its housing register.
2. Mr X said the failings affected his mental health and band 2 priority means he will remain longer in temporary accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

Homelessness

6. After Mr X became homeless as a result of domestic abuse the Council arranged emergency accommodation for him in hotel 1. Mr X says his independent domestic abuse adviser (IDVA) assured him the hotel booking would be extended, but the Council says hotel 1 did not have a room available. Mr X was asked to leave hotel 1 by 11 a.m, but the Council was not able to provide details of alternative accommodation until 12:30 that day.
7. In its complaint responses, the Council said:
• since hotel 1 did not have a room available, it was trying to secure an alternative for him and, due to the number of people needing accommodation on the day, it was not able to provide details of the alternative until after the check-out time at hotel 1, for which it apologised;
• it tried to call Mr X with details of the new accommodation at 12:30, but could not get through and left a voicemail message. It also sent an email with details of the alternative accommodation;
• the hotel said it had given Mr X extra time to pack and had offered assistance with packing, which he declined. The hotel said Mr X refused to leave and the police were called. The Council said it had viewed CCTV footage, which showed Mr X shouting and causing a disturbance, so it did not consider the hotel was at fault for involving the police;
• it has since procured additional temporary accommodation, which means it is less likely to need to use bed and breakfast accommodation.
8. The Council had a duty to provide accommodation for Mr X, which it did. When it came to extend the booking, it was unable to do so. It was not able to arrange alternative accommodation until after the time Mr X had to leave hotel 1 due to the number of people it had to accommodate on the day. It has apologised to Mr X for the stress caused, which is an appropriate remedy. We will not consider this part of the complaint further because it would not lead to a different outcome.
9. Mr X does not agree with the hotel’s account of what happened on the day he was evicted. We cannot resolve the conflict of evidence and it is unlikely that further investigation by us would add to the Council’s investigation.

Housing register

10. Councils must allocate housing in line with their published scheme. This Council prioritises applicants on the basis of three priority bands: band 1 for those with the most urgent need to move and band 2 for those with an urgent need to move.
11. Mr X’s request for band 1 was considered by a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment conference, which decided he did not need additional priority because he was not at risk in his temporary accommodation.
12. Mr X was awarded band 2 because he was homeless and had fled domestic abuse, which was in line with its published scheme.
13. We will not consider this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s investigation in relation to the homelessness application and because there is insufficient evidence of fault in relation to his housing register application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman