Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to make the complainant a suitable offer of housing within a reasonable timescale. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council making her a direct offer of accommodation which was not suitable for her needs because she says it was outside her area of choice to move and was not a 4-bedroom 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
  (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. Ms X says the Council made her an unsuitable offer of accommodation in 2024 and it has not made any further offers. She is listed for a 4-bedroom property due to overcrowding and the Council offered a 3-bedroom home outside her area of choice.
6. The Council says it accepted the offer did not meet all of her needs but that this was offered as a short-term solution because the property was more suitable for her needs than her current home. It pointed out that Ms X has specified limited areas of choice and as 4-bedroom homes rarely become vacant it was an attempt to find a temporary solution. The property was only 2.9 miles from Ms X’s existing accommodation.
7. The Council advised Ms X that the direct offer could not meet all her needs but may be a better short-term solution to her housing problems. She refused the offer and the Council did not remove her from the direct offers list as it would normally do when one offer was rejected. She remains on the direct offers list but the Council has advised her to widen her areas of choice because larger home vacancies only occur very infrequently and it may be a long time before a suitable offer can be made.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. The Council made the direct offer as an attempt to find a short-term improvement to Ms X’s housing conditions. She rejected the offer and remains in the same position as she would have been prior to this. Councill’s have a duty to give priority to housing applications according to their allocations policy but there is no requirement for them to rehouse an applicant within any set timescale. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to make the complainant a suitable offer of housing within a reasonable timescale. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman