Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused any significant injustice to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council offering her a property as a direct offer and then withdrawing the offer before she had an opportunity to view it or discuss her eligibility for it. She says this caused her stress and upset at the time.

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
• 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. I have also considered the Council’s policy on direct offers.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says that the Council considered her for a vacancy which may have been suitable for her but withdrew it without discussing the suitability or allowing a viewing.
6. The Council says that she was only considered for the vacancy at the enquiry level and it did not make her a formal offer because further investigation of her case revealed medical evidence that she required ground-floor accommodation and this vacancy had steps. The policy would have involved Ms X receiving a formal offer letter and a viewing appointment if it was an offer.

The Council only allows a single offer under the direct offers policy which is separate from the normal choice-based allocations scheme. If a reasonable offer is refused the applicant loses the direct offer status. Ms X was considered for two properties in 2024 at the enquiries stage and she rejected one after confirming it was in an unsafe locality for her and the second one was the one she has complained about which the Council decided was unsuitable for her needs.

The policy involves the Council allocating some vacancies as direct offers to applicants selected for the scheme. It is responsible for matching vacancies to applicants according to their needs. The Council did not offer Ms X the property which she has complained about because it decided it was not suitable. She remains on the direct offer list and she did not lose her status as a result.

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.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused any significant injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman