Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the offer of a property or the priority band awarded on its housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. We cannot investigate some parts of her complaint because the law says we cannot investigate the Council’s actions as a registered social landlord.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained:
• the Council placed her in an unsuitable property, which she was forced to accept under duress;
• about the condition of the property when she moved in and the time taken for further work to be done;
• that, although the property remains unsuitable, the Council refused a management transfer and refused to carry out a suitability assessment. Instead, it had advised her she had to go back onto its housing register and start bidding again for properties;
• the Council initially awarded band C on its housing register, which was changed to band B on review, but Ms X says she should be in band A;
• about advice given during the Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) process, about delays in finalising her child’s EHC Plan and about the Council’s failure to deliver the support set out in her child’s EHC Plan.
2. Ms X said the unsuitable property was putting her child at risk. In her complaint to the Council, she also said it meant she was isolated because of its distance from family and friends, and she was incurring very high heating costs. She also said the location meant it took her child two hours (each way) to get to/from school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
5. 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

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

8. Ms X was living in a housing association property that did not meet her child’s needs. The Council accepted a housing register application and placed her in band B. In July 2024, she bid on property A. Her bid was successful. The Council offered property A in August and Ms X moved to it in October 2024.
9. Ms X said it was apparent, when property A was offered, that it was not suitable for her disabled child. She said she accepted it, under duress, because she wanted housing close to her preferred school for her child prior to the Tribunal hearing that would decide on the appropriate school placement. She also said she had refused a previous offer and was concerned about the consequences of refusing this property. (The Council’s allocation scheme says applications may be cancelled if applicants unreasonably refuse two offers in a 12 month period).
10. Ms X was unhappy with the condition of the property when she moved in. She said further work should have been done in the period the property was empty before she moved there. She also said the Council took too long to do the work needed.
11. Ms X told the Council the property was unsuitable. She said:
• the internal layout posed risks to her disabled child and caused sensory overload;
• the garden was unsafe and inaccessible due to steps, so her child had no safe play area;
• there was a risk her child could escape from the property;
• the location was a problem: property A was a long way from her support network and from services her child needed to access. Further, her child’s journey to school is two hours each way;
• the property was not affordable due to high heating costs and transport costs (she needed to use taxis because her child could not walk near traffic).
12. Ms X said the Council refused to consider a managed move because it said she did not meet its criteria. Ms X says it also refused to carry out an assessment of the suitability of the property. It advised Ms X she could rejoin its housing register if she wanted to be rehoused. Ms X made a housing register application and was awarded band C (medium welfare). Ms X asked for a review and provided additional evidence. She said she should be in band A. On review, the Council awarded band B (high welfare) to reflect the impact of her current housing. In further correspondence, the Council said the criteria for band A was not met, based on the medical evidence seen, but said it would consider any further evidence she provided.

My assessment

13. I have not considered Ms X’s concerns about the EHCP process or the provision of support in the EHC Plan. This is because the Council’s complaints process has not been completed in relation to those concerns. The law says we cannot investigate unless the Council has had a chance to respond. There is no evidence of undue delay in the Council’s complaints process that would justify us deciding to investigate before that process had been completed.
14. Ms X bid for a property through the Council’s housing register and was successful. The Council did not owe her a homelessness duty, so there was no requirement for it to satisfy itself the property was suitable before ending that duty and no right to a review of its suitability if Ms X disagreed with a decision to end the homelessness duty. Whilst I acknowledge the difficult circumstances in which Ms X accepted the offer, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating further. (Any injustice caused by poor advice in relation to the EHCP process can be considered as part of any future complaint Ms X makes when the Council’s complaints process has been completed).
15. The law says we cannot investigate complaints about councils when they are acting in their capacity as a registered social landlord. The Council was acting as landlord when deciding what works to carry out during the voids period, deciding the property was ready for occupation, and in carrying out further works after Ms X moved in. The Council was also acting as registered social landlord when deciding whether to agree a managed move. Therefore, we cannot investigate those aspects of the complaint.
16. It was possible for the Council to assess whether property A needed adaptations to meet the disability needs of Ms X’s child. However, it would not make adaptations where the applicant was seeking rehousing. Further, it is unclear whether the property could be adapted to meet the child’s needs, given that some of Ms X’s concerns relate to its location. In these circumstances, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify further investigation.
17. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s priority band decision is correct. We can consider its decision-making but, unless there was fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The evidence seen shows the Council considered the available information and its published allocations scheme at each decision point. It explained its reasons for deciding which priority band was appropriate and it made its decisions without delay. It confirmed it would consider any further medical evidence Ms X submitted to support her request for band A, but explained the criteria was not met, based on the evidence provided by the time it made its review decision. In view of these factors, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify further investigation.
18. For all the above reasons, we will not consider this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. We cannot investigate parts of her complaint because they relate to the Council’s actions in its capacity as a registered social landlord.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman