Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. We cannot investigate his complaints about the tenancy itself because the management of social housing tenancies is outside our jurisdiction and we have no discretion to consider them.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that Enfield London Borough Council ('the Council') unfairly offered him a fixed-term tenancy instead of a secure tenancy in 2024. As a result, he says that his family has felt distressed at the prospect of further uncertain accommodation and at unfair treatment (compared to able-bodied families). He also says that the tenancy offered denies him a right to buy his home.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X was an applicant on the housing register and in November 2024 was offered an adapted council property which met his medical needs. The offer letter did not state that this was a fixed-term tenancy but it did not say it was a secure tenancy. The Council says that on his second viewing he was told that it was a fixed term let for 10 years. He accepted the tenancy and signed the agreement in February 2025. He says that the Council told him he would be removed from the housing register if he refused the offer and that adapted properties only occasionally became vacant.
8. Mr X then complained that he was not told the type of this tenancy until the last moment. He also complained that his family, which includes a disabled daughter, was discriminated against by the failure to be offered a secure tenancy and that he had been denied his right to buy his home.
9. We will not investigate this complaint which was made more than 12 months after the offer was issue by the Council and is late. Mr X signed the agreement within 12 months but it clearly stipulated the tenancy was introductory for a period of 10 years. If his circumstances do not change the tenancy will revert to a secure tenancy.
10. Mr X says the nature of the tenancy is discriminatory but this is not the case. Many council tenancies are now offered with an introductory period before they become secure. Mr X did not have a right to buy because it is not a secure tenancy. The right to buy is not a statutory right for any tenant, it is only part of a secure tenancy and these tenancies do not have to be offered under the allocations process. The adapted nature of the property would be likely to exempt it from the right to buy regulations in any case, although a tenant could challenge a rejection of an application in the County Court.
11. We cannot investigate any issues related to the tenancy itself because these are not within our jurisdiction and fall within the remit of the Housing Ombudsman service.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. We cannot investigate his complaints about the tenancy itself because the management of social housing tenancies is outside our jurisdiction and we have no discretion to consider them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman