Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the way the Council considered whether a property offered was suitable because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it considered that. It is unlikely we could establish, by further investigation, the Council put undue pressure on Ms X to accept the offer.

The complaint

1. Ms X said the Council pressured her to accept a property that was not suitable for her and did not tell her about her right to ask for a review of its suitability at the time. As a result, she remains in housing that she considers unsuitable. Amongst other things, she wants the Council to put her back on the housing register, in the position she would have been in if it had not made the direct offer.

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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. In 2024 Ms X had a live housing register application. Her medical needs had been assessed in 2022 and the Council agreed she needed a ground floor property if there was no lift.
6. During the investigation of a previous complaint, the Council agreed to make a direct offer of housing to Ms X. It did so in March 2024, but later agreed the property offered was not suitable and withdrew the offer.
7. In August 2024, the Council carried out a fresh medical assessment. This said Ms X had no medical need to move and did not need any specific property type. It said she needed a ground floor property if there was no lift. It also said the property should not have internal stairs.
8. In October 2024, the Council made a further direct offer of a one bedroom, ground floor flat. It said the property was a suitable size and met Ms X’s assessed medical needs.
9. Ms X said the Council pressured her to accept the offer, which the Council disputes. She said she was unwell at the time she signed the tenancy and could not move to the property until January 2025.
10. In March 2025, Ms X complained the property was not suitable and the Council should not have offered it to her. She said her mental health had been affected. In its complaint response, the Council referred to a telephone conversation to discuss the complaint in which Ms X discussed her concerns about her neighbours. The Council said it had explained it was not the landlord and it did not have information about other tenants in the building. It noted Ms X had reported concerns about noise and an incident involving neighbours to the landlord, who was investigating.
11. Ms X made a further complaint in May 2025. She said she had previously told the Council she could not live in a converted property where it sounded like other people were in her home and that she had provided a letter from her psychologist to confirm this. She also said she struggled to access the laundry without support from her carer. In its complaint response, the Council said there was no evidence she had been pressured to accept the tenancy and advised her to refer her concerns about the property to her landlord. It explained how she could make a fresh housing register application.

My assessment

12. Prior to making the direct offer, the Council had carried out two medical assessments, neither of which assessed Ms X as needing a specific type of property or said she could not live in a converted property. It is unlikely that steps to the laundry would have made the property unsuitable, particularly as Ms X had a carer who could assist with laundry tasks. The Council considered Ms X’s assessed medical needs, the size of property she needed and the locations that were safe for her. There is therefore insufficient evidence of fault in the way it assessed the property as suitable for her. In the circumstances, we could not recommend it puts her back on the housing register in the position she would have been had the direct offer not been made and accepted.
13. Although a review right was mentioned in the complaint response, it is not clear that Ms X did, in fact, have a legal right to ask for a review of its suitability. Even if she had that right, she would have had to ask for a review within 21 days, which it is unlikely she would have done since she did not move to the property in that period. Even if the Council had accepted a late review request, it is unlikely it would have said the property was unsuitable in early 2025, given the points set out in paragraph 12 above. All of this means that further investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome.
14. Ms X said the Council pressured her into accepting the offer, which the Council disputes. Whilst the Council may have said it could not say how long Ms X would wait for a further offer if she refused, I have not seen evidence to show Ms X was told she could not refuse it. It would not be fault for the Council to say it could not hold the offer for Ms X for more than a specific time, given the demand for social housing and the need to allocate any properties that become available without delay. Further, the social landlord would not have been able to hold the offer for more than a short time as social landlords cannot have properties sitting empty longer than necessary. It is unlikely further investigation would establish whether undue pressure was put on her, which is likely to be subjective, and there is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve, given the lapse of time since Ms X accepted the offer.
15. The Council would not have information about the neighbours when it made the direct offer, and it was not fault for it to say Ms X needed to refer any concerns about the neighbours to her landlord. It is the landlord’s responsibility, in the first instance, to address any anti-social behaviour by other tenants.
16. For all the above reasons, we will not investigate further.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered whether the direct offer was suitable and it is unlikely we could establish, by further investigation, that undue pressure was put on Ms X to accept it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman