Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s review of the suitability of a final offer of housing. Ms X had court appeal rights, and it was reasonable for her to use them. In any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council had not properly considered the impact of a violent incident on her family when it decided a final offer of housing was suitable. She said moving an hour from her current area would make it difficult for her to access her support network and was too far away from her children’s schools.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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

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. Ms X lived with her children in temporary accommodation (TA) arranged by the Council. In summer 2025, there was a violent incident affecting their home. The police were involved. The Council implemented safety measures and said it would look for alternative long-term housing for Ms X.
8. Two weeks later, the Council made offered social housing. Ms X did not want to accept the offer. In September, she asked for a review of the suitability of the property offered. She said the Council had not properly considered the impact of the incident when offering a property an hour away, which she said was too far from the family’s support network and children’s schools. She also said an independent medical adviser (IMA) report on the family’s medical needs was inadequate.
9. On review, in early October, the Council decided the property offered was suitable for the family. It set out its reasons in detail, including addressing the specific concerns Ms X had raised. It explained she could appeal to the county court on a point of law if she disagreed with its decision. In further communications, it advised her to seek legal advice. It said she may be eligible for legal aid to appeal but, if not, suggested she contact the local Citizen’s Advice Bureau.
10. Ms X did not appeal. Instead, she made a formal complaint about the review. The Council did not consider there was fault in the review process and responded to the concerns she raised. During the complaints process, Ms X also said the Council had given conflicting advice because it had initially said there were two possible pathways for rehousing but later pushed her down a single route. This was not addressed in the Council’s final complaint response.

My assessment

11. Ms X had the right to appeal the Council’s decision the property offered was suitable. It was reasonable for her to use that right. Only the court could say whether the property was legally suitable and quash the Council’s later decision to end its housing duty.
12. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions were correct. We can consider the Council’s decision-making but, unless there was fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
13. In this case, the Council considered the information it had and all relevant issues when deciding the property was suitable, including the specific concerns Ms X raised. It set out the reasons for its decision in detail and there was no delay in its decision-making. There was, therefore, insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify further investigation.
14. In her complaint to the Council, Ms X also complained about inconsistent advice from the Council, which she said added to the stress of the situation. Council records show it considered safety measures after the incident and was looking for alternative long-term housing for her. It is likely that, if it had not been able to identify long-term housing quickly, it would have looked for alternative temporary accommodation. However, it was able to make a final offer within a short period and its communications about that were clear. In the circumstances, although I appreciate Ms X was unhappy with the final offer and the lack of other options, there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the suitability review because Ms X had court appeal rights and it was reasonable for her to use them. Further, there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman