Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s suitability assessment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigating the Council’s complaint response.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council failed to consider her medical evidence when assessing the suitability of her accommodation. She also complains about the delay in her suitability assessment being conducted and states that the actions of the Council have led to significant delay and distress.
2. Ms X submitted a further complaint that she was told by the Council to not bid on properties but then the Council placed a bid on a property on her behalf. Her housing officer who originally dismissed her evidence, conducted her suitability review and that there was no investigation into inappropriate comments about possible involvement by the child services team.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the Complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council offered Ms X a property which Ms X accepted. The Council completed a suitability assessment of this property and deemed it suitable for Ms X.
7. At the beginning of September 2025 Ms X requested a review of the suitability assessment under s202 Housing Act 1996. The Council conducted a suitability review and provided their decision on 3 October 2025 which is in line with the 8 week statutory timeframe to conduct such a review. The Council also give Ms X time to respond to the initial findings of the review before the final decision was provided.
8. There were two factors that Ms X stated made her accommodation unsuitable. The first was a lack of parking near her house despite having a blue badge. Ms X maintained that a lack of secure parking was causing her mental health to deteriorate. The second was not having a private garden, Ms X stated that the property did not have an outdoor space and as such was also having an adverse impact on her mental health.
9. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. We can consider the decision-making process. However, unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
10. In its review decision, the Council addressed both of the above issues and explained why they did not mean the property offered was unsuitable. There is, therefore, insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify further investigation.
11. Ms X requested an investigation under the Council’s complaint investigation process. The Council considered Ms X’s additional complaints in relation to the records and evidence on file. It said it had advised Ms X not to bid on unsuitable properties, and it explained that, as Ms X was homeless, it had advised her it may make bids on her behalf. It also explained that it was appropriate for the officer to let Ms X know that, if she refused a suitable offer and it ended its housing duty to her, it may need to make a referral to its children’s team. The Council addressed the issues Ms X had raised in its complaint response. We will not consider this part of the complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman