Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the information provided about a property before she bid on it, nor the Council’s consideration of whether it was suitable for her. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justly our involvement. In addition, Ms X had rights of review and appeal in relation to the suitability of the property and it was reasonable for her to exercise them.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that, due to inaccuracies in the Council’s advert, she bid on a property that was not, in fact, suitable for her medical needs. However, she says she was pressured into accepting it and threatened with losing her temporary accommodation if she did so. She also complained the Council ignored her medical evidence when considering whether the property was suitable. As a result, she says she was forced to accept the property, which caused distress and a deterioration in her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. The Council had accepted a duty to assist Ms X with her homelessness and had arranged temporary accommodation for her. It had also accepted a housing register application, which meant she could bid for properties.
8. The Council advertised a property in May 2025, which was being offered by a registered social housing provider. The advert described the property as a third floor flat. Ms X bid for the property, and the Council nominated her for it. It sent her a letter formally offering the property in discharge of its homelessness duty.
9. She then visited the area, following which she raised concerns, primarily about the block being built on ground above commercial properties, which made a third floor flat more like a fifth floor flat. She said that would not be suitable due to her mental health needs. In response, the Council gave her advice about the consequences of refusing a property that was “deemed suitable” because she had bid for it and explained she could ask for a review of its suitability. Ms X accepted the offer under duress and asked for a review of its suitability.
10. The Council considered a review request, including requesting medical evidence from Ms X’s G.P, another health professional and an independent medical adviser. It wrote to Ms X in June to say it was “minded to” uphold the decision to end the homelessness duty because the property offered was suitable. It set out its reasons for deciding the property was suitable in some detail and gave Ms X the chance to provide further evidence. Ms X then withdrew her review request but continued with a formal complaint, which was not upheld.

My assessment

11. The Council’s advert provided appropriate information about the property, which was based on the information it had received from the registered social housing provider. We would not expect councils to arrange viewings before an applicant bids for a property, and I note Ms X was offered a chance to view by the landlord when her nomination was accepted. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in relation to the information provided before Ms X made her bid to justify further investigation.
12. The Council properly explained the consequences of refusing a suitable offer, including that its duty to provide temporary accommodation would end. It also explained relevant rights of review, including the right to ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation offered, whether or not the offer was accepted. Whilst I understand Ms X felt pressured into accepting, having reviewed the records, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating this aspect further.
13. The Council did not consider whether the property was suitable when offered. It said it was “deemed suitable” because Ms X had bid for it. It subsequently considered the review request and issued a “minded to” letter but not a final review decision. The “minded to” letter shows it considered all relevant factors, including Ms X’s medical conditions, and it explained its reasons for deciding the property offered was suitable. Its letter shows it did not ignore the advice from the health professionals but said that there was no clear evidence to show the property was unsuitable on medical grounds.
14. We are not an appeal body. Unless there was fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision the Council reached. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify further investigation.
15. In any case, it was reasonable for Ms X to fully exercise her right of review and subsequent appeal rights if she remained unhappy with the suitability of the property. This is because ultimately only the court could determine whether the property was suitable and/or quash the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, she had rights of review and appeal in relation to the suitability of the property offered and it was reasonable for her to have exercised them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman