Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the suitability of a property the Council offered her. She has the right to appeal, and it is reasonable to expect her to use it. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached the decision on suitability.

The complaint

2. Miss X complains the Council dismissed her concerns about the suitability of the property it offered and says she is now homeless as a result.
3. Miss X says this caused significant emotional distress for her and her son. She would like the Council to provide suitable housing and review its decision-making process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 (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 the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council offered Miss X a property which it assessed as meeting her needs. The offer letter explained she could ask for a review of the suitability of the offer but that the property could not be left empty pending a review decision. Miss X did not agree the property offered was suitable for several reasons and told her Council of her reasons why. Miss X says she did not expressly refuse the offer, but she did not sign a tenancy agreement, collect the keys or move in. The Council treated this as a refusal, as set out in the offer letter.
9. Miss X asked for a suitability review. Miss X later said she would accept the property, but it was no longer available. At review. the Council considered her concerns and the further evidence she provided. It issued a detailed review decision explaining why it found the property suitable. Since she had refused a suitable offer, the Council ended its homelessness duty.
10. The Council advised Miss X about her appeal rights. It was reasonable for her to use her appeal rights because only the court could say whether the property offer was suitable and/or quash the decision to end the homelessness duty.
11. In any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the suitability of the property and carried out its review, to justify further investigation. Unless there is fault in the way the Council made its decision, we cannot comment on it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because she has the right to appeal, and it is reasonable to expect her to use it. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached the decision on suitability to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman