Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about homelessness applications because the complainant could have used his appeal rights and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the way the Council processed his homelessness applications and its failure to provide temporary accommodation. He says the Council discriminated against him and abused him.

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 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.

(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. This includes the complaint correspondence and homelessness decisions. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X applied as homeless. The Council rejected the application the following day. It decided Mr X was not homeless because he had accommodation in another country. Mr X asked for a review. The Council reviewed but did not change its decision. The Council said Mr X had 21 days to appeal to the court. I have not seen anything to suggest Mr X appealed to the court.
5. Mr X made a second homelessness application. The Council provided accommodation for one night. The next day the Council decided he was not homeless because he rents a shop with a flat above; he sub-lets the flat. The Council offered review rights which Mr X did not use.
6. Mr X complained. His complaints included that an officer asked inappropriate questions about Mr X’s religious practice and entered the flat even though Mr X said not to. Mr X complained of discrimination and a failure to offer temporary accommodation.
7. In response the Council said the officer enquired about his faith to ensure that any accommodation that was provided was appropriate in terms of location to a place of worship. But, the Council apologised and said its communication with Mr X could have been better and it recommended training for officers. The Council said it had to assess Mr X’s circumstances and there was no evidence he had refused permission to enter the flat. The Council said it was correct to refuse to provide accommodation.
8. I will not start an investigation because Mr X could have used his appeal rights if he disagreed with the Council’s decision regarding either homelessness decision. There is nothing to suggest fault in the way the Council assessed each application and we cannot decide if someone is owed the homelessness duty; that is a decision for councils and the court.
9. I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council accepts its communication with Mr X could have been better, but this does not require an investigation, not least because the Council apologised and recommended service improvements. In addition, there is no evidence Mr X denied entry to the flat and any injustice would be to the tenant/lodger rather than to Mr X. I can see why the Council needed to assess Mr X’s circumstances given that he reported being homeless but had had a tenancy since 2019 for the flat.
10. I have considered whether the Council should have provided emergency accommodation for more than one night. However, this provision only applies if someone appears to be homeless and the Council quickly decided in both cases that Mr X was not homeless.
11. Mr X says the Council discriminated against him but, while I acknowledge Mr X’s dissatisfaction with his contact with the Council, I have not seen any evidence of discrimination. Further, this is something Mr X could have raised in an appeal to the court.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have used his appeal rights and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman