Summary: Mr T complained the Council wrongly made an offer of accommodation to him, and then withdrew the offer. He says the Council has caused substantial disappointment. We found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to acknowledge the injustice it caused to Mr T by way of a payment of £200.

The complaint

1. Mr T complains the Council offered a property to him and withdrew the offer after he had accepted. Mr T says he was prevented from bidding between September and December 2023 because during this time he believed a suitable property had been secured.
2. Mr T would like the Council to make him an offer of a suitable tenancy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered information provided by the Council and Mr T, alongside the relevant law and guidance.
7. Mr T and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft decision before this final decision is made. All comments received have been considered.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Council accepted a duty to accommodate Mr T and registered him to bid for a suitable property on their online bidding system.
9. In August 2023, Mr T and another (X) bid on the same property. X was first in line for the property and Mr T was second. The Council showed the property to X and to Mr T, so that if X rejected the property, it could make an offer to Mr T.
10. X accepted the offer of the property; however, the Council mistakenly sent an offer to Mr T, which he accepted.
11. Mr T bid on other properties in September while he awaited the Council’s verification checks.
12. At the end of November, the Council confirmed it had completed its verification checks. Days later, it told Mr T the offer it had made to him had been in error, and the property was no longer available to him. He was told he should therefore continue to bid.

Analysis and findings

13. Offering a property to Mr T when it should not have is a fault.
14. The impact on Mr T is that his hopes were raised unfairly, and he was then disappointed. The Council took three months to identify the issue and correct its mistake.
15. Mr T says he was prevented from bidding from September to December. I have seen that he did bid on other properties in September. I appreciate that Mr T would have felt less motivated to bid when he thought he had secured a property, however, until the end of November, the offer was subject to verification checks.
16. Whether Mr T bid during this period was a choice for him, the Council did not suspend his bidding account in any way.
17. However, it is clear the Council’s fault has caused Mr T to be disappointed. Unless he had reason to doubt the verification checks would be passed, it is reasonable to accept that he believed he had secured a property and was looking forward to the move. To wait three months, and then be told the property was going to someone else has caused inevitable distress. This should be acknowledged by way of a recognition payment.
18. The payment recommended is intended to recognise that Mr T has been caused an injustice here, as we cannot provide a way to put him back in the position he would have been if the fault did not occur. To be clear, if there were no fault, Mr T would have remained on the list and continued to bid, but he would never have been offered the property.
19. We cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, that the fault has impacted whether Mr T would have found a property sooner.
20. I have not recommended a service improvement as the fault has arisen from a human error. I do not have reason to believe that there is a wider training need here.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. Within one month of the decision, the Council should:

• Make a payment of £200 to Mr T.

22. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We found the Council at fault, and it has agreed to make a payment in recognition of this to Mr T.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman