Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of Miss X’s permanent accommodation. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to have requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation when it was offered to her. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the support offered by the Council with rehousing. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that the Council offered permanent accommodation which was unsuitable for her and her child’s needs and where she has experienced anti social behaviour. Miss X also complained that the Council failed to help her move from the property. Miss X says that, as a result, she has suffered significant distress and had to leave her employment.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (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 Miss X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X was on the Council’s housing register. The Council nominated Miss X to a housing association for an offer of permanent accommodation. The Council’s nomination letter explained Miss X could seek a review of the suitability of the property if she considered it to be unsuitable. Miss X did not seek a review.
6. Some months after accepting the tenancy, Miss X made a complaint to the housing association and Council. She considered the property was unsuitable as it was on the ground floor. This made her feel unsafe as she had previously fled domestic abuse. Miss X also said the property was not suitable due to anti social behaviour.
7. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. It explained that officers had informed Miss X of her right to seek a review of the suitability of the property when it was offered to her and in the nomination letter. It said that Miss X’s landlord was dealing with her complaints of anti social behaviour. The Council also advised Miss X that she could approach the Council for advice on rehousing. It directed her to its website for information.
8. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the suitability of the offer of permanent accommodation. Miss X had the right to seek a review of the suitability of the property when it was offered it to her. Miss X was aware the property was on the ground floor when accepting the tenancy. The Council also notified Miss X of her right to request a review in its nomination letter. So, it is reasonable to expect Miss X to have sought a review.
9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council did not provide support with rehousing. In response to Miss X’s complaint, the Council advised Miss X on how she could seek advice on her rehousing options. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation of this aspect of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman