Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision a property is suitable for Miss X. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement, and it was reasonable for Miss X to challenge the decision by way of further appeal to the County Court.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council offered her housing which is not suitable, due to its distance from her children’s schools and family support network.
2. Miss X said this caused her stress and anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X complained the property offered to her by the Council is unsuitable and she felt pressured into accepting it. At the time, Miss X was living in temporary accommodation, and the Council owed her the main housing duty. Miss X was in band A with a priority need for housing.
8. The Council said it told Miss X to make three bids per week on properties and if she did not, the system would place automatic bids on properties suitable for her. It also said Miss X did not make any bids in the time she had access to place them, so the system placed an automatic bid on a suitable property.
9. Miss X said the property in question was not suitable for her and her children, due to the distance from schools and her family support network. Miss X said her family provide support with her children, such as transport to and from school. Miss X said if she was made to move to this property, due to its location, she would lose this support. Miss X also said it would be detrimental to her children’s education as they may need to move schools.
10. Miss X formally requested the Council review the suitability of the property and provided her reasoning as above, along with other reasons. In addition, Miss X provided supporting documents such as letters from the schools, her GP and letters from her family members were provided.
11. The Council carried out the review and agreed the property was suitable for Miss X. In its response, the Council outlined how it considered Miss X’s request and the supporting information provided. However, it ultimately decided the property was affordable, safe, available and therefore suitable.
12. Based on the information available, it appears the Council made all the appropriate considerations during its review and set these out clearly in its response to Miss X. There is not enough evidence of fault in its decision making to warrant our involvement.
13. Additionally, the Ombudsman is not an appeals body and therefore we can only look at how the Council reached its decision, we cannot overturn a decision. There is a right of further appeal to the County Court, and it would have been reasonable for Miss X to use this right if she disagreed with the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement, and it was reasonable for Miss X to challenge the decision by way of further appeal to the County Court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman