Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to make reasonable offers of accommodation to him because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council unreasonably delayed providing suitable accommodation despite being a Band 1 disabled applicant on the housing register since 2011. He says the Council failed to properly apply or update medical therapy evidence, causing him ongoing stress and a deterioration in his mental health.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; 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 the Complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X joined the Council’s housing register in 2011. He was registered as a disabled applicant and placed in the highest housing Band (1A) on medical grounds, recommending rehousing to a ground floor flat or bungalow.
6. He says the Council repeatedly recorded unsuitable general-needs properties as offers, even though they did not meet his assessed accessibility needs. He says the Council failed to properly apply or update medical and occupational therapy evidence, particularly regarding his need to avoid ground-floor accommodation for safety and trauma-related reasons.
7. The Council explained that it added ‘a first-floor flat with lift’ to its recommendation of requirements which were originally put in place on Mr X’s Band 1 priority. We do not find fault with the Council’s actions.
8. The evidence suggests that Mr X received 36 total offers or opportunities, including 9 Housing Association nominations and 17 properties that he actively bid for or was automatically placed on since joining the Council’s Housing Register. This disproves Mr X’s complaint that Council failed to make reasonable offers of accommodation.
9. The Council also explained that refusals or withdrawn offers were consistently linked to properties not meeting occupational therapy recommendations.
10. The evidence shows that the availability of properties meeting Mr X’s specific accessibility and parking requirements were extremely limited, and the offers made to him were consistent with what was realistically available. It said, Mr X rejected property offers as they did not meet his approval and/or needs.
11. Mr X says the Council relied on the scarcity of suitable properties as an explanation rather than taking proactive steps to secure appropriate housing, and its communication and case management were inadequate over a prolonged period. Councils have a duty to operate their housing register for applicants according to their published allocations scheme. There is no duty to house an applicant within a specific timescale and many applicants may have to wait for many years or bever be rehoused at all.
12. We cannot see evidence of inadequate or prolonged communication and case management. The Council acknowledged its delay in providing a Stage 2 response and awarded Mr X with £50 compensation which we deem as an appropriate remedy.
13. There is no evidence that the Council relied on the scarcity of suitable properties as an explanation for being inactive. The Council explained that changes in its allocation scheme meant that all applicants only had one offer in respect to housing allocations, in line with its Housing Allocation Policy.
14. Mr X requested that he be rehoused to a first-floor disabled property, or a first-floor new-build flat with lift access. He said that the property did not need to be fully adapted at the point of offer as he was willing to arrange adaptations if required.
15. The Council explained that if he were to accept a general-needs property that did not include adapted features, he would lose his medical priority and the accumulated waiting time associated with it, as the Council could not classify such accommodation as suitable for his assessed needs. We see no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions or decision making to justify us investigating further.
16. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. Unless there was fault in the Council’s decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme. We will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final Decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman