Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homeless and housing application. She says the Council failed to reassess her application when she disclosed her medical conditions. This is because it was reasonable for her to have used her right of appeal. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault and an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her homeless and housing application. She says the Council failed to reassess her application when she disclosed her medical conditions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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
• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In June 2024, Ms X approach the Council as homeless. The Council accepted it owed her the main housing duty. As Ms X was homeless, she was also accepted onto the Council’s housing register.
7. In August 2024, Ms X provided the Council with details about her medical conditions.
8. In September 2024, the Council offered Ms X a property. This was a final offer of accommodation to discharge its main housing duty. Ms X was concerned about the suitability of the property and rejected the offer in October 2024. The Council discharged its main housing duty on the basis Ms X had rejected a suitable offer of accommodation.
9. The Council completed a review of its decision to discharge its main housing duty and a review of the suitability of the property offered to Ms X. The review noted the Council considered the reasons put forward by Ms X as to why she did not consider the property to be suitable, as well as the medical evidence she provided to support her reasons for why the property was unsuitable.
10. The outcome of the review was the Council was satisfied the accommodation offered was suitable for Ms X and her household. The Council upheld its decision to discharge the main housing duty and appropriately advised Ms X of her right of appeal. There is no evidence of any fault in the way the Council completed the review.
11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its main housing duty. This is because Ms X had the right to appeal to the county court and it was reasonable for her to have appealed if she disagreed with the Council’s decision.
12. The Council also confirmed it offered Ms X a second property under the residual priority remaining on her housing application once the homeless duty and associated priority was ended. Ms X also refused this offer. The Council closed Ms X’s housing register application following this refusal.
13. The Council’s housing allocation policy details that applicants who have refused two suitable offers of housing will be suspended from the housing register for a six-month period. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault as the Council’s decision to close the application was in line with its policy.
14. However, it is acknowledged the Council completed a review of its decision to close Ms X’s application. The Council said following consideration of the information provided by Ms X, it decided to reopen Ms X’s application. Therefore, an investigation is also not justified as it would not lead to any further outcomes.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it was reasonable for her to have used her right of appeal. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault, and an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman