Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s view that a flat, not just a house, might meet Miss X’s needs. This is mainly because the evidence suggests the Council reached its decision properly. Miss X can reasonably take court action if she wants a decision on whether the Council has broken equality laws.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council said it might give her a flat, not a house, to resolve her homelessness. She argues this contradicted medical evidence about her disability-related needs and broke the Equality Act 2010, including the Public Sector Equality Duty. Miss X states this caused distress and damaged her health.

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 cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.
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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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))
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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 law gave Miss X the right to ask the Council to review its decision about the types of property it would consider offering her. Miss X asked for a review of the Council’s view that some flats, not just houses, might be suitable for her. The Council’s review decision had regard to Miss X’s arguments and medical evidence. It gave reasons for deciding some flats might be suitable for Miss X. That decision seems properly reached, including taking account of Miss X’s disability-related needs as the Council understood them. So investigation is unlikely to find fault with the review decision, although Miss X is entitled to disagree with the decision.
9. It is for the courts, not us, to decide whether the Council’s decision-making breached any legal duties under the Equality Act. I appreciate Miss X’s health might make court action difficult. However, that does not mean we can rule definitively about whether the Council broke the law. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to go to court if she wants a decision on this point.
10. After the review decision Miss X sent the Council more medical evidence about why a flat would not meet her disability needs. The Council said it would contact the doctor for clarification. Miss X then withdrew her application and stated she was ending her relationship with the Council. Therefore there was no fault in the Council not taking further action on that new evidence.
11. The Council also told Miss X twice that she would have a legal right to ask it to review the suitability of any property it might offer her. It was open to Miss X to await a housing offer knowing that if she were to consider the offer unsuitable if it was a flat or maisonette, or for any other reason, she could seek a review of that particular offer’s suitability. If any such review went in Miss X’s favour, the Council would have had to withdraw the offer and offer somewhere suitable. If any such review still gave Miss X an unfavourable decision, Miss X would then have had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. So the Council’s initial view would not necessarily have been the last word.
12. Miss X argued the Council was wrong to reserve most houses for families with children. This point is about whether the Council indirectly discriminates against disabled people who do not have children living with them but who might need a house rather than a flat. It is for the courts, not the Ombudsman, to interpret how the law applies in such situations. So it is reasonable to expect Miss X to take court action if she wants a decision on this point.
13. The Council apologised for wrongly leading Miss X to believe for two weeks it would only consider offering her houses, not flats. That seems a suitable remedy for this point. Investigation would be unlikely to achieve significantly more.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. The Council reached its decision properly. Miss X could reasonably take court action if she wants a decision on whether the Council has broken equality laws. There was no fault in the Council stopping acting on new evidence when Miss X withdrew her application. We are unlikely to achieve more than the Council’s apology for the period when it raised Miss X’s expectations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman