Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the tenancy offered to her mother, Mrs Y. There is a conflict of evidence and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained her mother, Mrs Y, was pressured by the Council to accept a tenancy or be made homeless just after being discharged from hospital. Ms X said the Council later accepted the property offered was not suitable for Mrs Y.

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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. The Council offered Mrs Y a two bedroom property and arranged for her to view it. During the viewing they identified the bathroom door was not wide enough for Mrs Y to enter and exit without turning her mobility aid sideways.
6. In its complaint response, the Council said its officer contacted the occupational therapist (OT) during the visit and the OT advised that Mrs Y could refuse the property on that basis or could accept it and the Council could consider whether the door could be widened. It said Mrs Y accepted the property and signed a tenancy agreement. The Council has no written record to confirm this choice was given. Ms X says Mrs Y was pressured into signing a tenancy agreement or make herself homeless.
7. A month later Mrs Y told the Council she had changed her mind about the property and had not moved into it. The Council said it advised her that, as she was a homelessness applicant, she should ask for a review of the suitability of the property offered before ending the tenancy, because otherwise she was at risk of being found intentionally homeless. Mrs Y asked for a review and the reviewing officer decided the property was not suitable for her.
8. The Council told me Mrs Y has since decided to live with Ms X and is not seeking rehousing.

My assessment

9. There is a conflict of evidence about the discussion between Mrs Y and the Council officer at the initial viewing. As I was not there, I cannot confirm what was said, and there are no written records to help me resolve the conflict. Therefore, we would not be able to make a finding about what happened and further investigation by us would not change that.
10. It is not disputed that Mrs Y signed the tenancy agreement and the records show she was aware this meant she was liable for the rent. A month later, she contacted the Council to say she had changed her mind. It was not fault for the Council to advise her to seek a suitability review at that point to protect her position as a homeless applicant and there was no delay in carrying out that review. Therefore, although this meant Mrs Y was liable for the rent on the property for longer than she might otherwise have been, this was not due to Council fault.
11. For these reasons, we will not investigate further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman