Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council treated Ms X when she was homeless. The complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. The alleged impact on Ms X’s health and earnings is more appropriately for the courts. The Council has not had a reasonable opportunity to consider another part of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council did not deal properly with her homelessness. She says the Council moved her frequently between different accommodation despite her health problems, did not provide suitable accommodation, Council officers were discourteous and threatening, and the Council unfairly sent her a bill. Miss X states this worsened her health problems and damaged her ability to work.

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 cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The complaint concerns the period April to August 2023 when the Council was providing interim accommodation while Ms X was homeless. Ms X knew at the time that she was dissatisfied with the Council. She did not complain to us until November 2024, which was 15 to 19 months after the events complained of. So the restriction in paragraph 3 applies.
9. Ms X completed the first stage of the Council’s complaint procedure in August 2023. Ms X did not make a substantive second-stage complaint for seven months after that. The Council sent Ms X its final response on 4 March 2024, advising how to complain to us. Ms X did not complain to us for another eight months. So most of the delay from August 2023 until Ms X’s complaint to us in November 2024 was due to Ms X, not to the Council.
10. I appreciate Ms X has some health problems. However, I am not persuaded they would reasonably have prevented Ms X from complaining to us promptly, and in any event within 12 months of the events.
11. It is also unlikely any investigation by us now could reach a clear enough view about precisely what Council officers told Ms X, the tone in which officers made some comments, or whether a room would have been available for Ms X in a particular hotel on a particular date. Nor is it likely we would recommend more than the apology the Council has already provided for some poor communication.
12. Ms X says the Council’s actions damaged her health and her ability to earn money. That is really a claim of personal injury and consequential economic loss. The courts can consider those matters, so the restriction in paragraph 4 applies to this point. The possible cost of court action does not in itself automatically mean the Ombudsman should investigate instead. The existence of, liability for and compensation for personal injury and economic loss are not straightforward legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide these matters. So it is reasonable to expect Ms X to go to court if she wants a decision about the impact on her health and earnings.
13. Ms X’s complaint to us also said the Council sent her a bill she considers unfair. I have not seen evidence the Council has had a reasonable opportunity to deal with this point. The restriction in paragraph 5 therefore applies to this part of the complaint. I do not see good reason why the Ombudsman should consider this point before the Council has had an opportunity to deal with it. Therefore Ms X should complain to the Council about this using the Council’s complaint procedure. If she remains dissatisfied after doing that, she can bring this point to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. It is unlikely investigation could reach a clear enough view on some points now or add to the Council’s investigation. The alleged impact on Ms X’s health and earnings is more appropriately for the courts. The Council has not had a reasonable opportunity to consider the complaint about the Council sending Ms X a bill.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman