Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of an offer of housing. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to have continued using the Council’s review procedure.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains a Council review decision wrongly concluded the Council had offered her a suitable home. Miss X says this means she and her family are living in unsuitable housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. 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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X and her family were homeless, so the Council had a duty to offer them suitable accommodation. The Council offered a property. Miss X accepted it rather than have nowhere to live and used her legal right to ask the Council to review the property’s suitability.
7. Miss X says on 13 January 2025 the Council sent her its review decision that the property was suitable. Miss X argues the Council is wrong and the property is not suitable.
8. The letter of 13 January 2025 was not the review decision. Rather it said the Council’s was minded to decide the property was suitable, but it gave Miss X an opportunity to put her case in writing or orally before the Council completed the review. The letter gave Miss X one week to reply to the Council, though it also invited Miss X to contact the Council if she wanted more time to reply. Miss X complained to us on 15 January, before the Council’s one-week timescale ended.
9. The law expressly provides the review procedure for disagreements about a property’s suitability. Miss X was evidently able to ask for a review. The review was still underway when Miss X contacted us. In the circumstances it is not appropriate for the Ombudsman to step in and interfere with the legal process. Miss X might have misunderstood the ‘minded-to’ letter as being a final decision. However, the letter clearly gave Miss X the right to reply, so it was reasonably obvious it was not the final outcome of the review. In all the circumstances, it was reasonable to expect Miss X to continue in the review procedure the law provides. So we shall not investigate the complaint.
10. If the Council later issued a review decision saying the property was suitable, Miss X would then have had a right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. So the Council’s view would not necessarily be the last word. My decision not to investigate the complaint is not based on the court appeal right, but on the reasons in the previous paragraph. I mention the court appeal right to emphasise that the law provides a route for challenging councils on the suitability of accommodation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to have continued using the review procedure as the Council invited her to do. That was the proper way to challenge the Council’s view about her property’s suitability.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman