The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss J complains the Council took too long to find her a suitable property adapted to her needs. It pressurised her family into accepting an unsuitable property. We do not find fault. While Miss J was waiting a long time, this was because of a lack of available properties. The Council was doing what it could to identify a property.
The complaint
My summary of the complainant’s (Miss J) complaint is that the Council: took too long to offer the complainant (Miss J) and her family a suitable property which could be adapted to meet her needs; in 2023, pressurised them to accept an unsuitable property and advised if they complained their place on the bidding system might be affected.
Miss J says that as a result she has lived in unsuitable accommodation, without access to bathing facilities, for longer than necessary.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)
What I have and have not investigated Miss J and her family have been waiting for some time for the Council to find them a suitable property. Miss J complained to us in September 2025. She advises that she did not complain to us earlier about an offer of the unsuitable property (in early to mid-2023) as they were told if they did so, they might lose their priority on the Council’s housing register. I have not investigated this period, as the issue Miss J complains of – that the Council tried to get them to move to an unsuitable flat – did not happen. And the issue they were warned about was likely that if they refused an offer, they might lose their housing priority. That was correct advice, but the Council decided not to do this. So, even if the complaint was not late, there would likely be insufficient injustice to warrant a remedy.
I have limited my investigation to the 12 months before Miss J’s complaint to the Ombudsman.
How I considered this complaint
I considered evidence provided by Miss J and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
Miss J and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Legal and administrative background Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14)) An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories: homeless people; people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing; people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds; people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others; (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3)) The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
Part 10 of the 1985 Housing Act contains a definition of overcrowding, based on a calculation of the number of people that can occupy a property given the number of rooms available as sleeping accommodation. This is known as statutory overcrowding. This says children of different genders need separate bedrooms as they get older. The Council has adopted this statutory provision in its own housing allocation policy The courts have considered whether a council can breach a person’s human rights by not allocating them housing. In “Bernard v LB Enfield [2002] EWHC 2282 (Admin)” a council failed to provide adaptations for 20 months forcing a claimant and her family to live in poor conditions. In that case there had been administrative fault by the council which led to the delay. The conditions were so bad it was impossible for the family to have a meaningful family life and so there was a breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
In contrast, in “R (on the application of McDonagh) v Enfield LBC [2018]”, the courts found no breach of Article 8. In that case the family was in unsuitable housing for some time. But there was no breach of their human rights. One of the reasons was because the council could show the efforts it had made to try to find accommodation for the applicant.
What happened
Background
Miss J lived with her partner and children in a privately rented house. For several years Miss J has had a disability which means she is a wheelchair user. Her home was deemed unsuitable for her needs and could not be adapted. Miss J could only access two rooms on the ground floor and could not use the kitchen, bathing facilities, or access a bedroom. She had been assessed as needing a wheelchair accessible property.
The Council accepted Miss J had a priority need for re-housing. She and her family were on the Council’s housing register for over seven years. The Council says, during that time: it had assessed multiple properties but they had not been suitable for the adaptations Miss J needs; it had completed nominations to multiple housing associations, but none had been suitable for adaptation.
Miss J said she only wanted re-housing in the town where she lives. And there is limited social housing stock there, limiting the likelihood of the Council identifying a property. It had advised Miss J of this. And also told her the chances of finding a suitable property would be enhanced if she allowed the Council to widen its search to other parts of the Borough.
The Council says that between December 2024 and September 2025 Miss J bid for 12 properties and it considered with each whether they were suitable for adaption to her needs. Miss J’s partner notes they had bid for more that these properties and these were the ones the Council had considered for adaptation. HeHe also noted they had bid for a property outside their town – he noted a property in a nearby town they had bid for.
Miss J complained to the Ombudsman. In response to my enquires the Council advised: in earlier years, it had considered adaptations to larger and smaller houses. But in most cases the works were not deemed to be feasible. But in the preceding three years it had not been possible for it to consider this, due to its limited budget and a backlog of homes needing adaptations; on a case by case basis it considered adaptation works to void properties for housing register applicants. It considered the urgency of a case, reasonableness, practicality and cost of works and available resources; it aimed to make the best use of existing accessible / adapted stock when it became available. This included prioritising applicants on the register who have a need for this type of accommodation over those who do not, and directly matching (rather than advertising) wheelchair accessible properties when these become available to the applicants these would be most suitable for.
Analysis Miss J and her family undoubtedly waited a long time for the Council to find them a property. I do not want to dismiss how difficult that must have been for the family. But the Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
So my enquiries focussed on the steps the Council took, in the period I have investigated (see paragraph 7), to find Miss J a new home. I am satisfied it was doing what it could to find a property. Its budget imposed constraints. As did the limited social housing available in the area Miss J wanted to stay near. The Council has shown it was considering the subtility of properties that became available. Happily, that eventually led to it finding a suitable property.
I have also considered whether the Council could have done more to have regard for Miss J’s human rights. But given I have not found any fault, it is likely the courts would not have found a breach (see paragraph 15) so I have not found fault.
Decision I find no fault by the Council for the period I have investigated.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman