Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to approve adaptations to facilitate an extra bedroom for Miss B’s child. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has denied her an extra bedroom in her property to meet the needs of her disabled child. She says the Council has ignored other issues and evidence she has provided. Miss X says the situation has dragged on for two years and this has impacted on her mental health and stress levels.
   Miss X says the Council should reconsider its decision and consider all the evidence provided.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X contacted the Council’s adaptations team in April 2024 as she said she needed an additional bedroom because of her child’s needs. Miss X said both her children could not share a bedroom. The Council wrote to Miss X to confirm her case was on waiting list so her child could be assessed.
6. The Council completed an assessment in August 2024. Due the information being received as a self-referral from Miss X it said it needed to gather more information from other professionals involved with Miss X’s child. These included professionals working in the school Miss X’s child attended. It said it would improve the process when a referral prompts it to contact other professionals.
7. Miss X told the Council she had asked for another bedroom and not necessarily an extension. The Council said it could not create another bedroom by splitting an existing bedroom as this was unlikely to meet standards. It said it needed to gather further information to inform its decision which included a third-party agency being involved in the assessment process.
8. The Council wrote to Miss X in September 2025 and said it could not progress her complaint further. It said it had decided it could not provide an extra bedroom in line with its adaptations policy based on the outcome of assessments of Miss X’s child. The Council said Miss X could approach the housing department to discuss rehousing if she felt her children would benefit from separate sleeping spaces.
9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because any injustice is not enough to justify our involvement. The Council’s adaptions team which includes occupational therapists used professional judgement when deciding not to provide an extra bedroom for Miss X’s child. Miss X could consider applying to be rehoused as the Council suggests.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman