The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council handled his homelessness application. The Council has upheld the complaint and agree to pay him £250 to remedy the uncertainty and frustration caused.
The complaint
Mr X complained Council officers were unhelpful and interrogated him when he first asked for help with his homelessness. He said the Council took no steps to assist him and did not offer him interim accommodation, despite him explaining he has a medical condition.
Mr X said that, as a result of the Council’s failings, he was street homeless, which adversely affected his medical condition and he felt suicidal.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X asked the Council for assistance in late February 2024. He spoke to two officers by telephone. He said they were unhelpful and interrogated him. He complained to the Council about their conduct. In its complaint response, the Council said the calls had not been recorded, but it had spoken to the officers, who confirmed the calls had become heated. It said the officers had followed the correct process, but it would remind staff about the challenging circumstances customers faced when contacting it about homelessness.
In response to my initial enquiries, the Council provided relevant records. There was no record of the initial calls. This means there is no record to show how the officers considered whether it had reason to believe Mr X was homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need, and therefore whether it had a duty to arrange interim accommodation when Mr X first asked for help with his homelessness.
Mr X attended the Council offices a few days later and an officer carried out a homelessness assessment. The assessment recorded Mr X had been sofa surfing for several months, and reported a medical condition, which affected him daily and meant he was in considerable pain. The officer recorded they needed to make further enquiries to decide if Mr X was in priority need because he was vulnerable on medical grounds. The officer discussed the possibility of interim accommodation “if he met the threshold”, but recorded Mr X “refused this option” because he would not go into housing without his dog.
The records do not show the Council made any enquiries about Mr X’s health and medical condition, or about how long he could stay sofa surfing with friends, or about whether he had a local connection to its area. Nor did it ask Mr X for any documents to support his application. It did not issue any formal decisions or issue a personalised housing plan to set out the actions it and Mr X could take to address his homelessness.
In mid March, Council B contacted the Council to say it had been contacted by Mr X. The Council replied that it did not owe any housing duties to Mr X as it had not yet been able to confirm he was homeless.
In mid April, the Council asked Mr X whether he wanted to pursue a homeless application with it or with Council B. Mr X said he understood his application had been refused as he had not had any contact from the Council, which he assumed was because he had made a complaint. Therefore, he felt he was being “forced out of the area”. He said he would pursue an application with Council B which was willing to listen to him and “actually want to help”. On this basis, the Council closed the case and wrote to Mr X to confirm this.
If we investigated further, it is likely we would find fault because there is no evidence the Council considered whether it had a duty to provide interim accommodation when Mr X first asked for help, and no evidence of any steps to progress his homelessness application. Whilst it is likely Mr X would have refused interim accommodation if he could not take his dog with him, he has suffered uncertainty and frustration as a result of the delay and lack of contact with him.
We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused. The Council agreed to pay him £250 within one month of the date of this decision, and to share the learning from this complaint with relevant staff to prevent a recurrence of the issues that arose here.
Final decision
We have upheld this complaint but will not investigate further because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X and improving its service for others.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman