Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the accommodation the Council offered him. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement. Mr X had court appeal rights in relation to the suitability of property B, and it was reasonable for him to use those rights.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council arranged unsuitable accommodation twice and ignored his concerns about safety and accessibility. He said it has not properly considered the family’s circumstances and their safety and wellbeing had been compromised.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. Mr X was homeless. The Council accepted a main homelessness duty and arranged temporary accommodation (TA) outside its area. In late 2024, it made a final offer of accommodation at property A. Mr X said property A was unsuitable because he said his wife would not be able to manage the stairs with their young children. The Council’s panel considered his concerns but decided property A was suitable. Its decision letter explaining its reasons did not say Mr X had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, but it did say his temporary accommodation would be cancelled if the offer was not accepted. On that basis, Mr X accepted the offer in November 2024.
8. In early December, shortly after moving in, Mr X asked for a further review of the suitability of property A. The Council said it was “minded to” decide property A was suitable and gave Mr X the chance to send it further evidence, following which it agreed the offer was not suitable in January 2025.
9. The Council said Mr X decided to remain in property A, pending a further offer. It offered property B, which it said was suitable for the household. Mr X asked for a review of that decision. He said it was unsuitable, in particular because the lift was not large enough for a double buggy, which meant his wife would struggle getting the children up to and down from the flat. After seeking advice from a medical adviser, the Council decided on review that property B was suitable. It explained its reasons, including addressing the concerns Mr X had raised. It advised Mr X of his appeal rights. Mr X moved to property B in May 2025.

My assessment

10. The Council should have told Mr X about his appeal rights in November 2024. However, this did not cause him a significant injustice because it accepted a further review request within a week of him moving to property A. There is insufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
11. The Council carried out the second review without delay. It was entitled to say property A was suitable in the short term whilst it identified a new property. There was no undue delay in making a fresh offer of accommodation at property B. There is insufficient evidence of fault in relation to this period to justify further investigation.
12. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision about the suitability of property B was correct. We can consider the decision-making process but, unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
13. The Council did not delay in carrying out a review of the suitability of property B. It considered the concerns Mr X raised and set out its reasons for deciding the property was suitable. It advised Mr X about his appeal rights. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify further investigation. Further, it was reasonable for Mr X to use his appeal rights if he disagreed property B was suitable.

Back to top

Final decision

14. 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