Summary: Mr and Mrs Y complain about the Council’s involvement in their move to Extra Care Sheltered Housing and its refusal to pay a Peace of Mind charge, so they faced eviction action by the housing provider. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so has completed his investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X, an advice worker complains for Mr and Mrs Y about the Council’s involvement in their move into Extra Care Sheltered Housing. In particular Ms X says
• Mr and Mrs Y were forced to move from their specially adapted bungalow and given little time to consider what to do and to move. Mr Y was threatened that if anything happened to Mrs Y while he was her carer it would be his fault. So, they felt they had no choice but to move from accommodation that was suitable and affordable to them.
• The Council’s housing application contained an error saying they needed to move as they lived in a house and Mrs Y could not manage stairs. Mr and Mrs Y lived in a bungalow so there are no stairs.
• Mr and Mrs Y said they could not afford the Extra Care Sheltered Housing and were assured everything would be paid for. This has not happened, and they have accrued arrears on a Peace of Mind (POM) charge the Council refused to pay.
• The tenancy agreement they signed was blank without any details including financial details.
• Mr and Mrs Y felt social services had to fill the vacant accommodation and they fitted the criteria.
2. Ms X says the move has resulted in financial difficulties for Mr and Mrs Y and they have been threatened with eviction causing distress

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have read the papers submitted by Ms X and spoken to her about Mr and Mrs Y’s complaint. I considered the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
6. Ms X, Mrs and Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Events leading to the complaint

7. Mr and Mrs Y lived in a bungalow rented from their local borough council for over 20 years adapted to suit their mobility needs. Both have health conditions and Mr Y acts as carer for Mrs Y.
8. In November 2016 Mrs Y went into hospital because of ill health. She was discharged home with a care package of morning calls for personal care. An assessment period with an enablement service followed who provided more care. The enablement service’s case notes record Mr and Mrs Y wanted help completing forms for an Extra Care Sheltered Housing Scheme I will refer to as Oak House. It is run by a housing provider I will refer to as Beech Housing. The notes say Mr and Mrs Y were ‘hoping to move’ to Oak House.
9. An Occupational therapist (OT) assessed Mr and Mrs Y. The OT’s notes say Mr and Mrs Y queried whether they were on the waiting list for Oak House.
10. A case worker from the Council’s Social Services helped Mr and Mrs Y complete an application for Oak House. The officer ‘s case notes confirm Mr and Mrs Y ‘would like to move to supported living as they feel more support is required for both of them’. The officer noted a referral had been completed to Oak House. The case worker said Mr and Mrs Y were keen to move and both had capacity to make the decision.
11. The application form referred to a comment that Mrs Y ‘cannot use stairs’. The Council says the case officer knew the couple lived in a bungalow and did not have stairs. But wanted to record that they could not manage stairs in the new accommodation. The Council accepts it is a potentially misleading recording, but considers it did not affect the decision to put Mr and Mrs Y’s application to Beech Housing. The Council based its decision to do so on the need identified by Mr and Mrs Y that they needed extra support. The application form included the comment that they wanted to move somewhere that provided more support.
12. The application form also states that Mr and Mrs Y did not worry about their finances and were receiving several benefits.
13. The Council sent the application form with a referral form which correctly stated Mr and Mrs Y lived in a bungalow.
14. The Council confirms it sends referrals for Oak House to Beech Housing who consider applications at a panel meeting to agree if it will offer a tenancy to the applicant. Beech Housing declined to share its documents about the panel hearing with the Council. So, it is not possible to comment on information Beech Housing considered and its decision to agree a tenancy with Mr and Mrs Y.
15. Mr and Mrs Y visited Oak House with family members and signed a tenancy agreement with Beech Housing to rent a flat at the scheme on 16 January 2016. The tenancy agreement set out the charges for the accommodation which included a POM service charge of £41.29 a week.

Mr and Mrs Y’s move to Oak House

16. Mr and Mrs Y moved to Oak House on 17 January 2016. The Council has no recorded details of when or how Mr and Mrs Y’s move to Oak House was arranged.
17. A few weeks later the care agency supporting Mrs Y told the Council the couple alleged they had moved into supported accommodation and told they would receive help to pay the £200 monthly POM charge. Mr and Mrs Y later went to the Council offices in distress about paying a POM charge they were unaware of when they agreed to the tenancy. They said they could not afford to live at Oak House.
18. The case worker contacted the Oak House manager who said they would have discussed service charges in detail with Mr and Mrs Y before they moved in to ensure they could pay them. The manager confirmed they listed the charges in the agreement signed by Mr and Mrs Y. The case officer referred Mr and Mrs Y for help to ensure they were receiving all the benefits entitled to. The Council’s notes record Mr and Mrs Y then received the maximum benefits they were entitled to.
19. Mr and Mrs Y started attending a day centre for two days a week and the case officer referred them for a new financial assessment. The case officer carried out a care needs assessment which considered Oak House met their needs. Mr and Mrs Y were happy with the care package and so there was no change to their care and support plan.
20. In June 2017 Mr and Mrs Y’s granddaughter contacted the Council saying they had been placed at Oak House against their will causing them distress. The case officer visited Mr and Mrs Y who raised issues about the accommodation and not affording the fees. The case notes record Mr and Mrs Y could not say who told them to move from their bungalow.
21. The case officer advised Mr and Mrs Y to apply to the local council’s housing register and bid for properties so they could move from Oak House. Mr and Mrs Y agreed to pay Beech Housing £50 a week for the POM charge (£40) and £10 off their arrears for the charge as they had not been paying it.
22. The case officer, with the Oak House manager reassessed Mr and Mrs Y’s care needs. The officer found Mr and Mrs Y received joint housing benefit to cover the rent of the flat. Mrs Y alleged they had agreed to move into Oak House, but it felt it was not fully explained to them. Mr and Mrs Y said they had lost their independence and needed to use taxis to get to shops and other places. The manager confirmed again she had been clear with Mr and Mrs Y from the start about the compulsory POM charge all residents needed to pay. The manager did not consider Mr and Mrs Y were forced to move to Oak House.
23. The Council carried out a financial assessment on Mr and Mrs Y. The outcome was for Mr and Mrs X to pay £11 a week towards their care charges plus the POM Charge. The Council’s case notes record neither Beech Housing, or the Council considered they could help Mr and Mrs Y settle their debt for the charge.
24. The case officer and Oak House manager visited Mr and Mrs Y in November 2017 to look at their finances and the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) they received. DLA is a benefit paid to eligible claimants who have extra care needs or mobility needs because of a disability. It can be used to cover transport costs.
25. The case officer considered Mr and Mrs Y had a substantial surplus left each month once all bills were paid and noted they had no issue paying their other bills. This included a service charge at Oak House for heating, water charges, maintenance costs and utility charges for the communal area. Mr and Mrs Y agreed to pay £5 a week to repay the debt as well as the weekly POM charge, now at £41.

Eviction Notice and court case

26. In February 2018, a local council officer told the case officer of Mr and Mrs Y’s distress in receiving an eviction notice from Beech Housing because of arrears with the POM charge. The case officer contacted Mrs Y and offered support, but this was declined.
27. The case officer told the council officer Mr and Mrs Y had signed a tenancy agreement and were fully aware of the charges. Mr and Mrs Y’s finances had been looked at, they had enough income to pay their bills and agreed a repayment plan. The case officer said the debt was with Beech Housing who could reclaim the funds and serve an eviction notice. The case officer said the Council would provide the couple with support, as necessary.
28. Beech Housing confirmed Mr and Mrs Y were fully aware of the cost and charges when they signed the tenancy to move to Oak House. It was for Mr and Mrs Y to resolve as they had the income to clear the arrears.
29. The Council’s records show the case officer contacted the manager of Oak House in April and May 2018 about the eviction but received no response until June 2018. The manager said Mr and Mrs Y had not paid towards the arrears since February 2018.
30. In November 2018 Mr and Mrs Y received a letter confirming a court date in January 2019 for the possession proceedings and unpaid POM charge. The Council’s notes record Mr and Mrs Y were refusing to pay the POM charge as an advice agency told them they did not have to use their DLA to pay bills. A support manager at Oak House contacted the case officer. She said Mr and Mrs Y alleged social services had told them they had to move and gave them a date to leave their bungalow. They said they did not sign a tenancy agreement and were unaware of the POM charge.
31. The Council’s records show the case officer confirmed Mr and Mrs Y signed a tenancy agreement and no one from Social Services would have made them move anywhere. The Council questioned the couple’s move to Oak House as it had no panel information from Beech Housing about the decision to offer a tenancy. It noted Mr and Mrs Y had capacity to make decisions and received advice about paying their bills. The Council said if Mr and Mrs Y chose not to pay bills and use their money for other things then this was their choice.
32. The court adjourned the case against Mr and Mrs Y in January 2019 to April 2019 allow for more information to be provided.
33. In April 2019, the Council arranged a home visit to Mr and Mrs Y with a different case officer. Mr Y said the local council allocated them a low housing banding so it would be a long-time until they were offered a new property. The case officer recommended they look at sheltered accommodation which would remove the POM charge but still provide support. Mr and Mrs Y said they were spending over £400 a month on taxis because of Oak House’s location which was the reason they could not afford the POM charge. Mr and Mrs Y said the advice agency was attending the court hearing and providing support. The case officer considered it unlikely she would attend.
34. The court dismissed the case for possession of Mr and Mrs Y’s flat. But the arrears for the POM remained payable. The Council’s notes record that Mr Y advised at a later meeting they were ordered to pay £5 a week towards the arrears for the charge. Beech Housing asked the Council to pay the POM arrears for Mr and Mrs Y. The Council declined and confirmed to Mr and Mrs Y it was a private arrangement between them and Beech Housing.

Disability Related Expenditure Application

35. The case officer arranged to visit Mr and Mrs Y in May 2019 with an officer from the Finance Service. Mr and Mrs Y’s granddaughter was present. The officers looked at making a Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) application for Mr and Mrs Y. This was to see if some of their expenditure could be considered as DRE and so provide extra financial support. DRE is disability related expenditure is money spent specifically because a person is disabled. It can be recognised as an ‘outgoing’ by the Council when it carries out a financial assessment.
36. The officers also reviewed their care and support plan. Officers found that Mr Y received a carer’s premium as an extra payment as Mrs Y’s carer. This meant he no longer had to pay a charge for his care. Mr Y has a credit of £335.67. The Council asked Mr Y to provide his bank details for a refund, but Mr Y has not provided the information.
37. The officers submitted the DRE application to the Finance service in June 2019. The application included some taxi costs and the POM charge.
38. The application went to a team manager for approval in August 2019. The manager advised there were no receipts to show the expenses and could not be authorised without them. The application was refused. The Council’s notes say it still regarded the POM charge as a matter between Mr and Mrs Y and Beech Housing. The case officer asked Mr Y to provide taxi fare receipts. Mr Y said he did not remember being asked to keep receipts or taxi payments and agreed to keep them from then on to provide proof of expenditure. The Council asked Mr and Mrs Y to provide receipts several times, but they did not do so.
39. The case records show officers expressed concerns about the health and welfare of Mr and Mrs Y. It recorded the difficulties in getting financial receipts from Mr and Mrs Y
40. In November 2019, the Council looked for a way forward over the POM charge and liaised with local council about any suitable properties. It was agreed to consider Mr and Mrs Y with a move from Oak House to remove the POM charge. The officers submitted a DREA again with taxi receipts from Mr and Mrs Y and included the POM charge. A manager confirmed that under Council’s DRE policy it did not normally pay travel costs as these are met through a person’s DLA and other travel concessions. The officer asked for more information about the POM charge.
41. The Council accepts that because of staff absences and high workload officers did not follow up the DREA application during November and December 2019. The Council apologised for this.
42. The case officer arranged a meeting for January 2020, but Mr and Mrs Y cancelled the meeting as they wished their adviser to attend. The meeting could not be rearranged until March 2020 when Mr and Mrs Y met with the case officer, a representative from the advice agency and their granddaughter. This was to discuss the situation at Oak House, their wish to move as well as the DREA. Mr and Mrs Y advised they had not brought their financial details or receipts to be able to complete the application. Mr and Mrs Y provided the information later and the application sent on 20 March 2020 to the manager to consider.
43. The Case Officer noted the Council did not normally include travel costs in a DREA as the costs are met through other means such as DLA. The case officer said Mr and Mrs Y spent a lot on travel costs due to the terrain of their current living environment which put them at risk of falls. The officer explained the Council had looked at other options to reduced costs, but these had not proved possible. The manager agreed to consider the POM charge as DREA and approved the application the same day.
44. The Council says the POM charge as well as other tenancy costs for Extra Care Housing is paid by the tenant and not the Council. It is a private arrangement with Beech Housing and part of the tenancy agreement. It is not obliged to award a Disability Related Expenditure Allowance (DREA) as it is discretionary. The Council says the POM charge would not necessarily form all or part of the DREA as this is again discretionary and considered on a case by case basis.
45. The Council says that, unfortunately, the Case Officer did not initially consider a DREA application for Mr and Mrs Y before May 2019 and this was an oversight. The Council apologised and rectified this by approving the application in March 2020. The Council exercised discretion to approve the application and backdated it to the date of the initial request in November 2019.
46. The DREA reduces Mrs Y’s contribution towards care costs and therefore Mr and Mrs Y’s outgoings which should allow extra funds to pay the POM charge. The Council has recently confirmed to Mrs Y her weekly contributions to her care needs are £25.69 and she is receiving the maximum waiver the Council can provide. The Council has confirmed to Mrs Y that it is still her responsibility to pay the POM charge to Oak House
47. Mrs Y has confirmed the outstanding charge is over £7000 and they have an appointment with the manager at Oak House to discuss this moving forwards.

My assessment

48. Mr and Mrs Y allege the Council gave them no choice but to move and were forced into it. But the documents I have seen show Mr and Mrs Y were reported as wanting to move. The first suggestion about Oak House came from Mr and Mrs Y. The care review in December 2016 records that Mrs Y expressed a wish to move to supported accommodation. The documents show Mr and Mrs Y visited Oak House with family and signed a tenancy agreement. I am satisfied the evidence supports the decision to move to Oak House was made by Mr and Mrs Y. I have seen no evidence to show they were unduly influenced or made to move by the Council.
49. The Council’s documents show it helped with their application and sent it to Beech Housing to consider. The Council confirms that although there was an error when recording Mrs Y could not manage stairs, the basis of referral was on need for support accommodation that Mr and Mrs Y wanted. The Council’s referral form correctly stated Mr and Mrs Y lived in a bungalow so Beech Housing would have been aware of this. Beech Housing are unwilling to share their documents so I cannot see how it decided to allow the tenancy. However, I am satisfied the Council was not a party to the decision on the tenancy.
50. Mr and Mrs Y allege they were told all charges would be paid for, but they have been unable to say who told them this. Mr and Mrs Y appear confused about what they were told. Initially they say they could not pay the charge and it would be paid for them. Mr and Mrs Y then say they were unaware of the charge. The documents show Mr and Mrs Y made the decision to sign up for the tenancy with the manager of Oak House. The manager confirmed she discussed all costs with them to see if they could afford the tenancy. So, I consider the issue may be with Beech Housing when they signed for the tenancy. Mr and Mrs Y may wish to pursue a complaint against this housing provider if they consider there was misrepresentation when they signed for the tenancy.
51. Mr and Mrs Y also say the tenancy agreement they signed had no details including financial details. I have seen a copy of the signed tenancy agreement which clearly states there is a POM charge, what it is for and the amount payable. So, I consider this is another issue Mr and Mrs Y may need to pursue with Beech Housing.
52. Mr and Mrs Y allege they were given no time to consider what to do and to move into Oak House. The Council says it has no information about this and was not involved with the house move. The Council confirms Social Services would not have put Mr and Mrs Y under pressure to move and the documents I have seen support this. The documents show Mr and Mrs Y were keen to move and wanted to go to Oak House for support. There is no indication from the evidence provided the Council had to fill the vacant accommodation as Mr and Mrs Y allege. I consider this is an issue Mr and Mrs Y may wish to pursue with Beech Housing who agreed the tenancy.
53. I am satisfied the documents provided show the Council took action to try and help Mr and Mrs Y with their financial situation. The Council ensured they had support to receive the maximum benefits available to them and looked to help Mr and Mrs Y again by considering DREA in 2019.
54. The Council accepts the case officer did not look at this possibility sooner. However, while this is unfortunate the decision to allow payments as DRE is discretionary. The financial assessments carried out by the Council before 2019 showed Mr and Mrs Y had a significant income surplus after paying bills. So, they should have been able to afford the POM charge. Mr and Mrs Y decided to do otherwise. Mr and Mrs Y have capacity to make decisions about what they choose to spend their money on and are aware of the consequences if they do not pay. I consider, on the balance of probabilities that even if the Council had considered a DREA sooner, it is unlikely it would have included the POM charge as DRE. This is because of Mr and Mrs Y’s income; they were receiving maximum benefits and DLA and had provided limited evidence on their expenditure.
55. The Council has also confirmed that, although it has now included the POM charge in the DREA, it is still Mr and Mrs Y’s responsibility to ensure payment. This is because it is a private arrangement between them and Beech Housing. So, the Council has not taken responsibility for paying the charge. This is still for Mr and Mrs Y.
56. It is unfortunate the Council delayed in progressing the DREA in November and December 2019. However, the evidence shows it has taken some time for Mr and Mrs Y to produce information to support their application and to rearrange a meeting to discuss the DRE. The Council exercised discretion to approve the application and backdated the DRE to November 2019. I consider the Council’s apology for the delay in 2019 is suitable action for it to take.

Back to top

Final decision

57. I am completing my investigation. I have found no evidence of fault by the Council in its involvement with Mr and Mrs Y’s move to Extra Care Sheltered Housing and, in its refusal, to pay a Peace of Mind charge.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman