Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint about the Council’s lack of action when she reported her accommodation was unsuitable. This is because there is insufficient evidence of Council fault causing a sufficient injustice to Ms Y to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained, on behalf of Ms Y, that accommodation arranged by the Council was unsuitable. Ms X said Ms Y had told the Council she had difficulty managing the stairs due to mobility issues, and had had a fall in May 2024, but the Council took no action to address this. Ms X said the issues with the property had caused significant distress.
2. Ms X also complained the Council’s ASC team had asked for medical evidence, which was not needed because she already had medical priority on its housing register.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Suitability of accommodation

6. Ms Y told the Council about problems with her accommodation, including disruptive behaviour by other residents and difficulty managing the stairs, including a fall on the stairs in May 2024. Ms Y said she did not want to remain in the accommodation.
7. In its complaint response, the Council explained that it had made a referral to charity A, which had arranged the accommodation for Ms Y. Since the Council was not involved in arranging the accommodation, its housing officer had advised Ms Y to contact charity A. It was not fault for the Council to refer Ms Y back to charity A in the first instance.
8. That said, given the mobility issues Ms Y reported, this could have triggered a homelessness application on the basis that it was not reasonable for her to continue to occupy the accommodation. I have not seen anything to suggest the Council considered this. However, even if we investigated further, it is unlikely we would be able to say, even on balance, the Council would have decided Ms Y was homeless, so any injustice is limited to uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different if this had been considered. This is not a sufficient injustice to warrant further investigation.

Requesting evidence

9. Ms Y also complained the Council asked for evidence she had already provided.
10. In its complaint response, the Council explained that its housing and ASC teams use different recording systems and therefore cannot access information provided to the other team. Its ASC team was therefore not aware Ms Y had provided evidence of an autism diagnosis to the housing team. It said its ASC team had updated its system and apologised for any distress caused.
11. We will not consider this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. In any case, Ms Y’s case has since been transferred to another council area and Ms Y has told the Council she does not wish to return to its area.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman