Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about events around an offer of housing. There is no direct connection between the Council’s alleged fault and Miss X’s main claimed injustice of living in an unsuitable property. The connection is only indirect.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council: stood by its offer of a property that did not meet her medical needs; did not give her enough time to provide evidence the offer was unsuitable before expecting an answer about whether the family would accept the property; and a Council officer was impolite and lacked empathy on the telephone. Miss X says this caused distress.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X is an adult who lives with her mother, Mrs Y. Mrs Y applied to the Council for homelessness help. The Council provided temporary accommodation. The Council then offered Mrs Y a long-term property for her family, to end the Council’s homelessness duty. Miss X argues the long-term property does not suit her own medical needs.
6. A homelessness applicant can ask the Council to review the suitability of a housing offer. If the review still decides the offer was suitable, the applicant can appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204) Here, as Mrs Y was the applicant, it was she, not Miss X, who had those rights.
7. The central part of the complaint is whether the offer was suitable. On this point, the Council did not have a direct duty to Miss X. Its direct relationship was with Miss X’s mother, Mrs Y, who was the homelessness applicant. The Council told Mrs Y about her right to seek a suitability review. Concerning whether the offer was suitable for the family, it was for Mrs Y to decide whether to seek a suitability review and to appeal to the county court. Mrs Y chose not to.
8. I appreciate Miss X’s view that, since she was living with her mother, she was left feeling she had to move into a property she considered unsuitable for her as she had nowhere else to go at the time. However, this claimed injustice to Miss X does not stem directly from any fault by the Council in terms of offering the property. Rather, the claimed injustice stems directly from Miss X being an adult member of Mrs Y’s household and to Mrs Y not using her right to challenge the suitability of the offer. The Council is not directly responsible for those points.
9. In that context, Miss X’s concerns about the Council not giving her time to provide evidence the property would not be suitable for her, not advising her what evidence it would consider and about how a Council officer spoke to her, are secondary. I do not consider those points are in themselves significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to pursuing them when we are not investigating the central point about the suitability of the offer. Also, we would be unlikely to fault the Council for wanting a quick decision on whether Mrs Y would accept the property. It is normal for councils to expect a quick response to such offers. The law provides the suitability review and court appeal process after the offer to deal with any concerns about suitability.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because her claimed injustice did not directly result from any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman