Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in carrying out a review because it has already apologised and offered to pay her £100 for the injustice caused. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. There is otherwise insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the offer of a property to discharge its homelessness duty to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that, despite having been on the Council’s housing register since 2019, it had not allocated social housing to her. She also complained the Council delayed carrying out a review of the suitability of a property it offered to her and, in the meantime, pressured her to sign a tenancy for the property. She said the Council had ignored the advice of an occupational therapist and other medical professionals. Further, it sent her some information relating to another person when it sent her a copy of her housing file.
2. Ms X said the Council’s failings had caused huge distress for the family and that she had had to fight for the rights of her disabled child, whose safety and dignity was affected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X was in temporary accommodation provided by the Council, which had accepted a homelessness duty. In July 2024, the Council offered a three-bedroom, ground floor flat that was adapted to meet the needs of a wheelchair user, including having a wet room. An occupational therapist (OT) carried out an assessment in August and confirmed the property would meet the needs of Ms X’s disabled child, although further adaptations were needed, including the provision of a specialist shower chair and ceiling hoist.
9. Ms X was not satisfied the property was suitable and provided further information. A further OT assessment was carried out in November 2024. This said the bathroom was not large enough for a changing table that may be needed in future and also said that raising the height of the external wall for the safety of another child would reduce light to the property.
10. The Council sought advice from an independent medical adviser (IMA), who said that the changing table was not needed at present but recommended the installation of a ceiling hoist in the wet room. The IMA said the other child had no formal diagnosis and that maintaining the safety of a child of their age in the home was a normal parenting role. They concluded the property offered was suitable on medical grounds.
11. The Council wrote to Ms X to make a further offer of the property. It addressed the concerns she had raised and explained its reasons for deciding the property offered was suitable.
12. Ms X asked for a review of the suitability of the property on 26 November 2024. The Council acknowledged the request and said the review would be carried out by an independent company. It later transpired the company’s contract had not been extended and outstanding reviews had to be brought back in-house. The Council apologised for its communication about this and offered to pay Ms X £100 to remedy the injustice caused by the delay in starting to carry out the review.
13. The Council should have completed the review by 21 January 2025 but did not do so until 25 March 2025. The review found the property offered was suitable. In the meantime, Ms X said it pressured her into signing a tenancy for the property. The Council did not end the homelessness duty until after the review decision was issued. Ms X has rights of review and appeal in relation to the decision to end the duty and it was reasonable for her to exercise those rights because only the court could say the property offered was unsuitable and quash the decision to end the homelessness duty. We will not consider this aspect further.
14. In the circumstances, although it was frustrating for Ms X, the delay in carrying out the review did not cause a significant injustice because the property offered was found to be suitable and, if it had still not been accepted, the Council could have ended its duty on the grounds Ms X had refused a suitable offer. On that basis, an apology and £100 payment was sufficient to remedy the injustice caused and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
15. Other than that delay, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation. The fact that Ms X had been on the housing register in band A since 2019 is not, of itself, evidence of fault, particularly as the family needed a property suitable for a disabled person and these do not come up very often.
16. We will not investigate the complaint about a data breach because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to address that matter.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the Council has already apologised and offered a payment to remedy the delay in carrying out a review and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Otherwise, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman