Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a property allocation. This is because Mr X’s complaint is a matter better addressed through the courts and it would be reasonable to expect him to use his court remedy to achieve what he is looking for. Nor will we investigate a complaint about how the Council handled Mr X’s information requests. There is another body better placed to consider that part of his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council was at fault, when it placed his late father (Mr Y), in a property, that had several levels and did not have sufficient handrail protection installed. Mr Y subsequently fell and suffered an injury and passed away several weeks later.
2. Mr X also complained the Council declined to provide him with any information from Mr Y’s housing files. Mr X said the Council’s actions has caused him significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 another body better placed to consider part of this complaint. (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 the complainant and I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X said in October 2025, the Council allocated Mr Y a property which was on the fifth floor of a building. Mr X said the Council had not carried out an adequate risk assessment before it placed Mr Y in this property and is intending to pursue a legal claim for wrongful death.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. Negligence claims and interpreting the law around civil liability is generally best decided by a court where no insurance liability is accepted. Only a court can decide whether the wrongful outcome claimed could have been foreseeable, before a person was harmed or placed at risk of harm, and if so whether the council is liable to pay damages for the loss a person has claimed.
8. Additionally, because we cannot establish this causal link to a person’s death, and the Council’s actions, it would be appropriate for Mr X to use his legal remedy through the courts.
9. Nor will we investigate a complaint about how the Council handled Mr X’s request for information from Mr Y’s housing files. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider complaints about information rights.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has an alternative legal remedy to achieve the outcome he is looking for and there is another body better placed to consider a complaint about information rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman