Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not offering Mr X different housing. There is no fault in the Council’s current approach. Mr X’s complaint about the Council offering him his current home is late and he could have taken court action on that.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s offer of his current home was unsuitable and the Council has not offered him a more suitable property. He says this means he remains living in a property where he is exposed to problems including noise from neighbours, which he reports is unsuitable for someone with his conditions.

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, section 26B, 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 Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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. The Council ended its homelessness duty to Mr X in 2018 by offering him a social housing property, where he still lives. Mr X says the offer was unsuitable for someone with his medical conditions because it is not detached so he is exposed to noise and disruption from neighbours.
9. Mr X knew about the offer and about his medical conditions in 2018, so the restriction in paragraph 3 appears to apply here. Mr X has been able to complain to us about other matters in the past. I consider Mr X could reasonably have complained to us within 12 months of the Council offering his property. So I do not propose to accept this complaint late.
10. Even if the above restriction did not apply here, when the Council offered Mr X the property, he had the right to ask the Council to review the offer’s suitability and then to go to the county court on a point of law if he remained dissatisfied. Therefore the restriction in paragraph 4 applies. As the law expressly provides that route for people to challenge the suitability of such an offer, we normally expect people to use it. The court has the expertise to consider legal points about suitability and the power to overturn the Council’s decision if it sees fit. Help can be available with legal advice and representation. I therefore consider it would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to go to court if he considered the offer unsuitable. For this reason also, I shall not investigate this part of the complaint.
11. Separately, there is Mr X’s current desire to move. The Council met Mr X and wrote to him about this. Mr X believes a detached bungalow would be more suitable for him. The Council says such social housing properties rarely, if ever, become available. The Council can only allocate social housing through its housing register. It advised Mr X he could apply to the housing register. The Council also said it anticipated he would have low priority on the register. However, if Mr X applies to the register, he will have the right to ask the Council to review any decision about his eligibility and priority level. If he were to believe there was fault in how the Council made such decisions, he could then complain to the Ombudsman. As the Council can only allocate social housing through the housing register, I see no fault in its approach but for which the Council could have rehoused him.
12. The Council also advised Mr X about contacting his housing association landlord to request a mutual exchange. It is also aware Mr X knows how to contact the Council’s environmental health department regarding alleged noise nuisance. I see no fault in those points.
13. Mr X expressed interest in supported housing. The allocation of supported housing is not the same as for general social housing. The Council says its adult social care section will consider whether Mr X can be considered for this. That is a separate matter, not part of the current complaint. If Mr X were to be dissatisfied with a Council decision about whether to consider him for supported housing, he could then complain through the Council’s complaint procedure and, if he remained dissatisfied, he could bring that to the Ombudsman as a separate complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council’s current position contains no fault that has deprived him of the kind of property he wants. Regarding earlier events, Mr X’s complaint about the Council offering him his current home is late and he could have taken court action on that.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman