Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to take appropriate action when he informed it he was homeless. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to take appropriate action when he sought help when he became homeless. As a result, he says he was forced to stay in a hotel for several weeks at the cost of several thousands of pounds.
2. He says the Council’s failure to provide him with advice means he did not receive the financial support he was due during that period.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Towards the end of 2023, Mr X became homeless after he gave his landlord notice on his rental property.
8. Mr X tried to seek help from the Council by completing an online form several times but he says that each time he reached a dead-end.
9. As a result, he says he was left with no choice other than to stay in a hotel for several weeks.
10. Mr X complained to the Council and said he was entitled to £50 a night financial assistance whilst he staying at the hotel.
11. In its complaint response the Council confirmed Mr X had made attempts to complete the online form. It said the form was designed to signpost the service user to the right advice and support. The website also had a telephone number for service users to call. The Council also offered face-to-face appointments to the public.
12. The Council’s records showed Mr X had spoken to a member of staff but it no longer had the call recording. It apologised for this as it was not possible to confirm what advice Mr X had received.
13. We will not investigate what advice Mr X was given by telephone. There is no independent evidence to determine what advice was given. Therefore, further investigation would be unlikely to achieve anything meaningful.
14. The Council said that Mr X had not provided the information it required to determine what duties it had towards him when he was homeless. It also explained that there were only limited circumstances when it had a duty to provide interim accommodation. The Council said it did not have a policy or a legal requirement to repay any of Mr X’s accommodation costs and so even if he had submitted a homelessness application form he would not have received financial support.
15. The Council had several ways in which Mr X could seek advice. Therefore, it is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the support that was available to him. But even if we did, the Council had no duty to provide Mr X with an allowance towards the costs of his accommodation whilst he was at the hotel. Therefore, any fault would not have caused injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman