Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the suitability of the property the Council offered her. It is reasonable for her to exercise her court appeal rights.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council keeps offering accommodation that is not suitable. She says she was not provided with an advocate and the Council to not make reasonable adjustments in light of her processing difficulties.

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.

(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 Ms X and information we hold in relation to a previous complaint she made.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. This decision covers the period from May 2025, which is the point at which our previous investigation ended.

Suitability of offers

8. The Council accepted a homelessness duty to Ms X and awarded band 1 on its housing register. It offered a two-bedroom flat, which is in Ms X’s preferred area. Ms X did not consider it was suitable and asked the Council to review its decision. The Council carried out a review of the suitability of the property offered. It set out and responded to Ms X’s objections and explained why it considered the property was suitable. It explained she could appeal to the county court on a point of law if she disagreed with its decision.
9. We will not investigate further because it is reasonable for Ms X to use her court appeal rights. Ms X’s disabilities have not prevented her from seeking legal advice to do so. Only the court could say whether the property offered was legally suitable and, if not, quash the Council’s decision.

Advocacy

10. The Council’s complaint response indicates Ms X has had the benefit of an advocate, a school worker and a housing charity. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Reasonable adjustments

11. Ms X has disabilities. The Council has considered her medical needs during the homelessness application and, in particular, when deciding the property offered was suitable. There is no indication Ms X has asked for particular adjustments to enable her to access Council services and that these have not been provided. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is reasonable for her to use her court appeal rights in relation to the suitability of the property offered and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating the other matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman