Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council’s delay in carrying out adaptations led to her missing out on a property offer. She says she cannot live in her current property and is sofa surfing with her children.

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.

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

3. We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

6. In June 2024, Ms X was living in a two-bedroom flat with her two children and an older relative and was on the Council’s housing register. The Council contacted her to discuss property A, which would need adaptations to meet the needs of the relative. Various checks were carried out and a viewing was arranged in July 2024, to include a discussion about the works needed, during which Ms X confirmed the family wanted to proceed with property A.
7. In its complaint response, the Council said that in July and August, it suggested Ms X consider another property that did not need such extensive works, so would be available earlier, but Ms X decided to proceed with property A.
8. The Council provided updates on the work being carried out at property A in October, November and December 2024. In November 2024, it sent a letter to the relative (the main applicant) formally offering property A and explaining that works may take a significant time to complete. It said the works were being carried out to meet their accessibility needs and that the offer was dependent on them being part of the household when the tenancy agreement signed, on completion of the works. Ms X said they did not receive that letter.
9. Ms X’s relative died in early 2025. Following this, the Council said Ms X could not proceed with property A because it was adapted (Ms X says the work has still not been done) and because she was now only eligible for a three-bedroom property, but property A had four bedrooms.
10. Ms X complained that, but for the Council’s delay in carrying out the works, the family would have moved to property A before her relative died. In its complaint response set out the complexities of the adaptations needed and why works were time-consuming. It apologised for delays in responding to requests for updates on some occasions.
11. Ms X said she could no longer live in the flat due to memories of caring for her relative there, so she was sofa surfing with friends. The Council advised her to complete a medical assessment form, which she did, although it later decided she did not quality for medical priority. That decision was upheld on review.

My assessment

12. On balance, the Council advised the family the works needed to property A would take some months and that it would only offer a tenancy on an adapted property if the household needed those adaptations. Ms X agreed to proceed with property A on that basis. The works were complex and there is no evidence of undue delay in carrying them out between July and December 2024. There is, therefore, insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify further investigation.
13. Following the relative’s death, Ms X was no longer assessed as needing an adapted property (whether or not the works had been completed at that point), nor did she need a four bedroom property. It was not fault for the Council to decide not to proceed with the offer of property A because the law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published scheme.
14. The Council awarded band C priority and later decided Ms X did not meet the criteria for medical priority. It upheld this decision on review.
15. We are not an appeal body. Unless there was fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
16. The review decision shows the Council considered all relevant factors, including the information Ms X provided about the impact of living in her current property after her relative’s death, and its allocation scheme. It explained its reasons for deciding band C priority was appropriate and that the criteria for medical priority was not met. In the circumstances, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman