Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to advise Mr X that the housing association accommodation he accepted under its homeless duty may be difficult to mortgage if he chose to buy it in future. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to notify him that the housing association accommodation offered to him in 2016 was a type of property which has identified structural defects under the Housing Act 1985. This means that when he exercised his Right to Acquire the property from the landlord in 2024 he discovered that it was a type which is difficult to secure a mortgage on. He says the Council should assist him in buying his home from the social housing landlord and resolve any defects.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council should have notified him in 2016 when he took the tenancy of his housing association home that it was of a type which had been designated defective under the Housing Act 1985 because of its construction type. He applied to buy the property in 2024 and only then found out that it would be difficult to secure a mortgage on because of it being designated as defective.
6. The Council says it had a duty to find accommodation for Mr X when it accepted the main housing duty for him under the Housing Act 1996 Part 7. The accommodation was a social housing tenancy offered by a housing association and the Council did not own the building, though it may have done many decades ago.
7. The government designated such system-built construction buildings as defective because many had been sold and reselling them was causing difficulties. The designation does not mean they are unsuitable for habitation but that they may be difficult to secure finance on or sell because of the system-built construction.
8. Mr X was offered the accommodation in 2016 and accepted it. The Council then discharged its housing duty and has had no further involvement with the tenancy. If Mr X believed the property was unsuitable at the time he could have asked for a review of suitability of the offer. He did not do so and has not suggested it is unsuitable for the past 9 years and has proposed to buy it. He cannot ask the Council to reconsider his homelessness application now because he is adequately housed.
9. The Council says that it had a duty to provide accommodation to relieve his homelessness and whether or not a property may be mortgageable in future is not a consideration under the homelessness legislation.
10. There is no fault in the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint. Many homeless applicants are found accommodation in the housing association or private rented sector and the property may not be one they have any rights to acquire or buy, or it may be exempted from the legislation for reasons included in the Housing Act 1985. The Council and a duty to find accommodation to alleviate Mr X’s homelessness and any future purchasing rights were not relevant to its duty under the homelessness legislation.
11. We will not reconsider the homelessness duty now because he could have complained at the time in 2016 if he believed the accommodation was unsuitable. We would have advised him to seek a review under s.202 of the homelessness legislation had he done so.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to advise Mr X that the housing association accommodation he accepted under its homeless duty may be difficult to mortgage if he chose to buy it in future. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman