Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing situation because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the lack of support from the Council with his housing needs and its refusal to investigate his complaint. He said his medical needs had deteriorated due to the impact of his current housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. The Council owed a homelessness duty to Mr X. It offered social housing to end that duty in July 2024. Mr X visited the property with an occupational therapist (OT). The OT considered the property was suitable for Mr X’s medical needs. The Council urged Mr X to accept the offer. It informed him that it could end its duty to assist him if he refused a suitable property and told him about his right to request a review of the suitability of the property.
8. Mr X accepted the offer and moved to the property, following which the Council ended its homelessness duty as it considered he was not suitably housed. Around the same time, his solicitor requested a review of its suitability. The Council should have issued a review decision within 56 days, but did not do so until 15 January 2025. During that period, it had agreed two extensions with the solicitor, issued a “minded to” decision and considered further submissions from the solicitor. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council apologised for the delay in issuing a review decision.
9. At review, the Council decided the property offered was suitable. It addressed the concerns Mr X had raised, through his solicitors, and set out its detailed reasons for deciding they did not make the property unsuitable for him. The Council explained Mr X could appeal to the county court, on a point of law, if he disagreed with its decision.
10. In the meantime, in December 2024, an OT had carried out an assessment of Mr X’s need for adaptations to the property. In January 2025, the OT carried out a joint visit with a housing surveyor to consider whether the adaptations being considered were feasible. The conclusion was that most of the adaptations were feasible. The record says Mr X was disappointed by this because he was hoping to be rehoused instead. Following a panel discussion, the Council sent a copy of the OT assessment to Mr X and asked him to confirm that he would remain in his current property for five years if major adaptations were carried out. In a complaint response in April 2025, the Council confirmed the adaptations did not proceed because Mr X had indicated he wanted to move, but that if he had decided he did want to stay there, the question of adaptations could be revisited.

My assessment

11. Given the high demand for properties and shortage of supply, particularly in London Boroughs, councils cannot leave properties empty so do need applicants to decide quickly whether they want to accept a property offered. In addition, when a property is offered to end a homelessness duty, the law says councils must want applicants about the consequences of refusing a suitable offer. Although this can be seen as undue pressure by some applicants, it is not (on its own) evidence of fault by councils. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating this aspect further.
12. Mr X accepted the property offered and immediately asked for a review of its suitability. The law says councils should carry out suitability reviews within 56 days, although they can agree extensions as the Council did in this case. The outcome of the review was that the original decision the property was suitable was upheld. This means Mr X’s position did not change so the injustice caused by the Council’s delay is limited to uncertainty whilst he was waiting for a decision. In those circumstances, the Council’s apology was sufficient to remedy the injustice caused and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
13. We are not an appeal body, and it is not our role to say whether the decision on suitability was correct. Unless there was fault in the Council’s decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The Council’s review decision indicates it gave careful consideration to the concerns Mr X raised and explained its reasons for deciding the property offered was suitable. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify investigating this aspect further. In any case, Mr X had the right to appeal to the county court and it was reasonable for him to exercise that right because only the court could say the property was not suitable and quash the Council’s decision to end the homelessness duty. These are not actions we could take.
14. The Council has assessed what adaptations Mr X needs in his current property to meet his disability needs and has decided most of these are feasible. However, major adaptations will not be carried out unless Mr X intends to remain in the property for five years. It was not fault for the Council not to progress the works, given Mr X indicated a strong desire to move but, if he changes his mind, the Council has said this can be revisited. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating this part of the complaint further.
15. If Mr X considers his medical conditions have deteriorated, he can provide evidence of this to the Council to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman