Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s homelessness. Part of the complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to take court action on other parts of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s actions regarding his homelessness, especially his eviction from interim accommodation and the treatment of his belongings.

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. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complains the Council evicted him from his homelessness interim accommodation, wrongly accused him of harming another person and did not let him back into the interim accommodation to collect his clothes and medication. This happened in May 2023. Mr X complained to us in December 2024, over 18 months later. So the restriction in paragraph 3 applies to this part of the complaint. Mr X did not complain formally to the Council for 12 months after the events. After the Council dealt with the complaint, it initially directed Mr X to the wrong ombudsman. However, it correctly directed Mr X to us six months after Mr X started his formal complaint to the Council. So, if Mr X had complained to the Council more promptly, he could have been signposted to us well within 12 months of the events he is complaining about. I note Mr X was homeless, had some mental health problems and was, with the help of solicitors, pursuing a review of the Council’s legal decision about his homelessness. Those factors might all have affected how quickly he could complain. However, Mr X was able to pursue matters during that time. Putting a complaint to us is not necessarily time-consuming. I am not persuaded there are good enough reasons for us to accept this part of the complaint so late.
9. Mr X also criticises an alleged lack of help from the Council when he was homeless. He wants the Council to house him now. The Council’s homelessness duty to Mr X ended on 31 May 2023. That decision was later upheld on review. The Council had no duty to help Mr X get housing after then.
10. The Council stored Mr X’s belongings when it removed him from his interim accommodation. It accepts it did not keep proper track of those belongings, so could not return them to Mr X later. The Council apologised, improved it storage procedures for the future and offered Mr X £850 compensation. Mr X argues that is inadequate. He says the belongings were worth £5,000 to £6,000.
11. Mr X could claim this sum on the Council’s insurance and, if that does not resolve the matter, he could take court action. So the restriction in paragraph 4 applies to this part of the complaint. We normally expect complainants to take court action if they want compensation. Questions of negligence, damages and compensation are not necessarily straightforward legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide them. Also, there is no comprehensive evidence of what went missing or its value. So it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view about what was taken into storage and what the Council should pay for compensation or replacement. A court could hear evidence on oath to decide those points. There might be a potential cost to court action, but that is not in itself automatically a reason to consider court action unreasonable. Mr X might get help with court costs if he is eligible and could ask the court for his costs if court action succeeds. As mentioned above, Mr X has sought legal advice in the past, so could do so again. For these reasons it is reasonable to expect Mr X to take court action for compensation regarding his belongings.
12. Mr X also wants compensation for the emotional impact of the events. As explained above, compensation is properly for the courts, not the Ombudsman. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to take court action if he wants compensation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The part about events in May 2023 is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. The Council has no duty to rehouse Mr X. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to take court action about his belongings.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman