Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s housing application. The evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision to suspend the application. The Council has not yet had a reasonable opportunity to deal with other parts of the complaint. The law prevents us considering the point about drug use in Council housing.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about housing matters, especially the Council suspending her housing application. Miss X and her child will therefore wait longer for rehousing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

The Council suspending Miss X’s housing application

8. The Council’s housing allocation policy lets the Council suspend an application for 12 months if the applicant refuses an offer the Council considers reasonable. Miss X refused a flat the Council offered. The Council suspended Miss X’s application for 12 months as it considered the offer reasonable. Miss X told the Council why she considered the offer unreasonable and asked the Council to review its decision. The Council’s review also said the offer was reasonable, so confirmed the suspension.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide whether an offer was reasonable or whether an application should have been suspended. As paragraph 2 explained, our role is to consider how the Council reached its decision. In assessing this, the key point is the review. The Council’s review took account of Miss X’s reasons for arguing the offer had not been reasonable. Those arguments largely concerned Miss X’s child’s disability and Miss X’s needs. The review took account of Miss X’s supporting evidence (reports from professionals) and sought advice from the Council’s medical adviser. The review correctly cited the Council’s policy on suspending applications and considered the Council’s discretion not to suspend if it thought there were exceptional circumstances. It gave reasons for deciding the offer had been reasonable and that Miss X’s application should be suspended for 12 months from the refusal date. Therefore the evidence suggests the Council reached its decision properly. That means the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision, as paragraph 2 explained, although Miss X is entitled to disagree with the Council.
10. Miss X contrasts the Council’s position about this offer with the Council previously having accepted her refusal of another property without suspending her application. That in itself does not mean the Council wrongly reached its decision in the later case.

Other parts of Miss X’s complaint

11. Miss X is also dissatisfied about other points in her dealings with the Council. These include the Council’s handling of information Miss X sought to give for the Council to reassess her housing application before the suspension ends. I have not seen any evidence these matters have completed the Council’s complaint procedure. The complaint about these matters was at stage one of the Council’s procedure in December 2024, after Miss X complained to us. In January 2025 Miss X told us she had asked the Council to take the new complaint to stage two of its complaint procedure.
12. The restriction in paragraph 4 applies here. I see no good reason to prevent the Council having a reasonable opportunity to deal with these matters before the Ombudsman considers them. If Miss X remains dissatisfied after completing the Council’s complaint procedure, she can make a separate complaint to the Ombudsman about the new matters.
13. However, there is one point Miss X raised that we cannot investigate, whether it has completed the Council’s complaint procedure or not. This is about how the Council has dealt with drug use in the building where Miss X lives. This point is about the Council’s management of its social housing. The law prevents us investigating that, as paragraph 5 explained.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. The evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision to suspend the housing application. The Council has not yet had a reasonable opportunity to deal with other parts of the complaint. The law prevents us considering the point about the Council’s management of its social housing.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman