Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of the Council’s offer of permanent accommodation to Ms X. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council offered the accommodation to justify an investigation. It is also reasonable to expect Ms X to have requested a review of the suitability of the offer of accommodation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council pressurised her into accepting an offer of permanent accommodation which was unsuitable for her. Ms X says that as a result she and her children are living in unsuitable accommodation which is causing distress and affecting her health conditions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Some years ago, Ms X made a homelessness application to the Council, and it accepted the main housing duty. The Council later made an offer of permanent accommodation to Ms X to end the main housing duty. Ms X considered the property to be unsuitable for her and her children but accepted it. She says officers pressurised her into accepting the property as they told her the Council would end its duty to accommodate her if she refused it.
6. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. The Council’s letter offering the property to Ms X explained that the Council could end the main housing duty if she did not accept the property. We are unlikely to find the Council to be at fault for explaining the consequences of refusing an offer as it enables applicants to make an informed decision. The Council also explained Ms X could seek a review of its decision that the property was suitable. It is unlikely an investigation would establish whether officers pressurised Ms X into accepting the property. We cannot know, even on balance, what officers said to Ms X when making the offer to her. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into Ms X’s complaint that she was pressurised into accepting the property.
7. We will not investigate whether the property was suitable for Ms X. We normally expect people to use statutory review rights, such as a review of the suitability of an offer of accommodation, unless there are good reasons why they could not do so. We recognise that it was a stressful time for Ms X due to her circumstances. But the Council clearly explained that Ms X could seek a review of the suitability of the accommodation in its offer letter. This included that she could accept the offer and then ask for a review. Ms X could have requested a review by writing or sending an email to the Council. We therefore consider it was reasonable to expect Ms X to have requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made an offer of permanent accommodation to Ms X. It is also reasonable to expect Ms X to have requested a review of the suitability of the offer of accommodation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman