Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not finding a larger property for Mr X and his family after they gained a special guardianship order for a grandchild. We cannot investigate matters that were before a court, and investigation of the Council’s actions since the order would be unlikely to lead to the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council failed to find his family a larger property after they agreed to care for their grandchild, despite a viability assessment stating the child would need his own room by the time he was one year old. He wanted to the Council to find him a larger property in another area of the country or pay him £96,000 for the loss of his right to buy as an original Council tenant if he did not have a secure tenancy.

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 have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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. I have seen a copy of the Special Guardianship Order (SGO) that confirmed Mr and Mrs X’s grandchild would live with them permanently. It contains no stipulations about the nature of the family home. Mr X would have been legally advised and it would have been reasonable to raise the issue of potential overcrowding and relocation in court.
8. After the court order, the Council would have a separate housing duty to consider any issue of overcrowding. It accepted it failed for a year to send a letter of recommendation it had agreed to do. However, there are long waiting lists for properties of the size Mr X is seeking, both in the Council’s area, where 14 years was stated as typical, and in the area he mentioned to the Council. And a letter of recommendation would not have created priority for Mr X over families with greater assessed needs, such as severe illness or life-limiting conditions, who would thus have to be in a higher band. We could not recommend the outcome Mr X is seeking because it is unlikely that investigation would lead to a finding that Mr X would have been re-housed, even had the letter of recommendation been sent immediately.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• We cannot investigate matters that could reasonably have been raised in court; and
• Investigation of the Council’s response to Mr X’s request for a move to a larger property since the SGO would be unlikely to lead to the immediate outcome he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman