Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his wife’s housing case. He says the Council moved them to a property that is unsuitable for his wife’s needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his wife’s housing case. He says the Council moved them to a property that is unsuitable for his wife’s needs and misled them into thinking adaptations would be made to the property.

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
• 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. Mr X and his wife, Mrs Z joined the Council’s housing register in 2023. Their application had Band 1 priority, with three-bedroom eligibility. Mrs Z required a property with specific adaptations, including a stairlift, level access shower or wet room, and downstairs toilet (if no stairlift).
6. Mr X and Mrs Z bid for a property. In April 2024, the Council matched them to that property. The Council accepted an occupational therapist was not present during the visit but said neither Mr X nor Mrs Z raised any concerns about the suitability of the property when they viewed the property. The Council said it did not provide any information that was misleading in terms of the adaptations present in the property or adaptations that were possible. Mr X and Mrs Z accepted the property after viewing it.
7. In June 2024, an occupational therapist visited the property to determine what adaptations were possible. Their recommendation was provided to the Council, and the Council completed another visit in August 2024 to decide if the recommendations were viable. The Council determined it was not possible to accommodate the changes recommended to bring the property to an acceptable level of accessibility for Mrs Z.
8. In recognition of Mrs Z’s needs and the difficulties she was having in accessing all facilities, the Council agreed to a management move. This meant the Council would look for suitable properties that could meet Mrs Z’s needs and allocate this property to her directly. The Council explained the requirements Mrs Z needed meant properties were very rare and that it could not allocate a property until one became available.
9. An investigation is not proportionate as we are unlikely to find fault. The evidence supports that Mr X and Mrs Z had viewed the property prior to accepting the property. This meant they were aware of what adaptations were and were not present. Further, the Council followed the correct process to identify if adaptations were feasible. The Council could not have known it was not feasible to complete the required adaptations until the necessary assessments were completed.
10. In addition, an investigation is not justified as there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable. This is because the Council has already recognised the property is not suitable for Mrs Z and has agreed to a managed move. The Council has confirmed it continues to actively looking for a more suitable property for Mrs Z. Therefore, an investigation would not achieve anything further.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman