Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about offers of social housing because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
• gave her inaccurate information about a property offered;
• offered another property that was unsuitable for her family; and
• has denied her the chance to choose the property she moves to.
2. Ms X said the failings and the Council’s dishonesty caused distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council accepted Ms X’s application to its housing register in May 2023. In early July, it considered the family’s medical needs and decided they needed either a ground floor property or a accommodation in a building with a lift.
7. In late 2023, the Council offered property A on the 8th floor in a building with a lift. Ms X said this was unsuitable because she had a phobia of lifts. The Council said it considered the property was suitable in line with the medical assessment. Although it initially said it may discharge its housing duty if Ms X did not accept the property, it then agreed to offer another property.
8. It offered property B, which it said was on the ground floor, although it was actually on the first floor of a building with a lift. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it made an error when describing property B as a ground floor property, for which it apologised, but said there was no evidence this was deliberate to make it look like Ms X was refusing properties inappropriately.
9. Ms X complained property B was unsuitable and provided further medical evidence. The Council said it considered property B was suitable based on its medical assessment in July 2023. It explained how Ms X could ask for a further medical assessment if her circumstances had changed.
10. Ms X also complained the Council had made a direct offer, which denied her the chance to choose where she moved to. In its complaint response, the Council explained this was due to a change to its Local Lettings Plan that allowed it to make direct offers for housing association properties to those applicants in temporary accommodation where it owed a main homelessness duty. This was to assist homeless households into long term accommodation. It also noted Ms X had not bid for any properties.
11. We will not consider this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant this. The Council has acted in line with its policy and its medical assessment. It has apologised for its error when describing property B as being on the ground floor, which is appropriate. It is reasonable for Ms X to ask for a fresh medical assessment if she has further medical evidence the Council has not previously considered. Following acceptance of an offer of accommodation, Ms X has the right to ask for a statutory review of its suitability, and it is reasonable for her to use that right.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman