Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his late father’s housing matters because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council’s use of desktop assessments meant it failed to identify a possible risk to his late father, Mr Y. He said a risk in his housing led Mr Y to fall, which led to his death in November 2025. He said the fall had been preventable and Council failings added to the grief he felt on losing his father.

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 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 Mr X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The law says councils must have the chance to respond to complaints before we investigate. I have not seen evidence the Council has investigated and responded to Mr Y’s complaints through its complaints handling process. That said, I have sufficient information to consider whether we could investigate otherwise.

October 2024 assessment

6. Mr Y was living in temporary accommodation (TA) arranged by the Council with his son, Mr X. Mr X was Mr Y’s full-time carer from 2019.
7. Mr X previously complained about a Council occupational therapy (OT) assessment in October 2024, which concluded the TA remained suitable for Mr Y. We found there was insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify further investigation.
8. Mr X now complains the assessment was inadequate because the Council did not do a home visit (it was a desk-based assessment) and therefore did not identity a potential risk in relation to the toilet door.
9. The Council was not required to do a home visit when deciding whether the TA was suitable. In any case, the October 2024 assessment referred to a previous home visit in May 2024. There is no indication Mr X raised concerns about the toilet door in 2024, and the records already considered show the Council considered the concerns that were raised at the time before deciding the TA was suitable. There are, therefore, no good reasons to investigate this further.

Housing register band

10. Mr X also complained previously about the Council’s decision that the criteria for band 1 on the housing register was not met. The Council accepted it had not properly explained the reasons for that decision. It agreed to carry out a fresh review, which it did in August 2025. Its decision show it considered the OT assessment dated October 2024, a lift report from the housing provider and the contents of Mr Y’s housing file. It decided not to award additional priority, and it explained is reasons in detail. We were satisfied the Council had complied with the agreed actions from our previous decision.
11. Mr X now complains the review decision did not consider the fact Mr X had had a fall in December 2024 and that it relied on the desktop assessment in October 2024. The Council was entitled to rely on the October 2024 assessment and was not required to carry out a further home visit.
12. It is unclear whether the family had provided any medical evidence in relation to the fall – it is not listed in the review decision, and Mr X did not complain to us about the review decision at the time. It is unlikely we would be able to establish now whether this would have affected the priority band awarded. Nor could we achieve a worthwhile outcome by investigating further because the situation has significantly changed in the meantime.

Emergency housing request

13. Mr Y had another fall in October 2025 and was admitted to hospital. Mr X made an emergency rehousing request. The Council consider the new information and identified two potential properties that Mr X and Mr Y could move to. The family accepted one offer and Mr X moved to that property when he was discharged from hospital. Mr Y says Mr X was confined to bed by that stage and died a few weeks later. Mr X complained the Council should have arranged alternative housing earlier.
14. In October 2025, the Council had additional information about Mr Y’s medical needs, which had changed due to his fall and had likely deteriorated since the OT assessment in October 2024. It is unlikely we would be able to establish by further investigation that the Council should have decided the TA had become unsuitable and made an offer earlier. Nor could we remedy any injustice to Mr Y because he has since died.

Lift not working

15. Mr Y complained the lift in the building where Mr Y lived was out of order for five consecutive days whilst Mr Y was in hospital.
16. The Council had considered the lift performance when carrying out the review in August 2025 and could have done so again if Mr Y had returned to the property after his hospital stay.
17. Lift breakdowns whilst Mr Y was in hospital did not cause him an injustice. Even if he had been caused an injustice, we would not be able to remedy this now because he has since died.
18. For all the above reasons, we will not investigate further.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman