Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s description of a property made as a final offer to Mrs X. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council telling her that a vacancy which she accepted had limited parking but which she says has no practical possibility for her to be able to park outside. She says she has to park away from her home and this adds time to her busy working day. She wants the council to provide her with a permit to park in nearby controlled parking zones.

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 responses.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X says she accepted a final offer of housing from the Council when she was a homeless applicant living in temporary accommodation. The Council told her that if she refused the offer her homeless case would be closed and her accommodation ended unless she had a successful review of suitability.
6. The vacancy was a housing association property and was described by the landlord as having limited parking based on requirements or need. Mrs X accepted the offer but subsequently found that other residents were mainly disabled and so had priority for parking most of the time which meant she had to park elsewhere. she says this has caused considerable inconvenience and that she would not have bid on the vacancy had she know the true restriction.
7. The Council told Mrs X that the description of the parking situation was accurately described by the landlord and that it would have stated there was on-site parking if this was the case. It considered the offer to be suitable for her housing needs as a homeless person without any disabled needs.
8. We will not investigate this compalint because there is insufficient evidence of any fault by the Council. As housing authority it had a housing duty to Mrs X as a homeless applicant. This duty does not extend to parking provision and much urban accommodation has no parking facility for a considerable distance. Mrs X could have made more detailed enquiries of the landlord about the parking situation but it is unlikely that she could have refused the offer as unsuitable if she was dissatisfied with parking provision.
9. 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

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s description of a property made as a final offer to Mrs X. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman