Summary: Mr C complained the Council's occupational therapy service delayed in responding to his requests for a reassessment and initially produced a report which did not adequately describe his needs. Mr C says he has lived in an unsuitable property for longer than necessary which has had a harmful impact on his health. We have found fault by the Council in the time taken to complete a reassessment but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about the Council's occupational therapy service. In particular, Mr C says the Council delayed in responding to his requests for a reassessment and initially produced a report which did not adequately describe his needs.
2. Mr C says because of the Council's fault he has lived in an unsuitable property for longer than necessary which has had a harmful impact on his health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read the papers provided by Mr C and discussed the complaint with him. I have also considered information from the Council.
7. I have explained my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. The following statement sets out the key events and does not record everything that happened.
9. Mr C says he contacted the Council via his OT in around April 2022 as his health had deteriorated and he wanted a reassessment. Mr C says he was told everything was already in place and he should instead seek an additional bedroom from his housing provider. The Council has no records of contact from Mr C in April about an OT reassessment. The Council has a file note dated 12 July which refers to an application form which was signed by an OT and returned to Mr C the following day. The Council does not hold details about the content of this form.
10. Mr C emailed his Borough Council on 21 December and requested to be placed on its ‘special needs housing pathway’ for a suitable three-bedroom property. Mr C copied this email to the County Council. Mr C asked that any suitable identified property was in line with the recommendations made by the OT in 2018 and also suggested a new set of recommendations if the OT felt this was appropriate.
11. Mr C contacted the Council on 20 January 2023 seeking an update. The Council’s OT emailed Mr C the same to advise further assessment was not required as the previous recommendations were still considered appropriate.
12. The Borough Council requested a copy of Mr C’s OT report from the Council on 7 February. The Council’s OT replied on 8 February to advise the environmental recommendations remained the same although Mr C had now advised he needed a larger property to meet the needs of his growing family and use of a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) machine during the night. The Council attached a copy of the OT report from 2018.
13. The Council emailed Mr C on 9 February to advise it had been in contact with the Borough Council and his previous OT was leaving the team which meant his case would be allocated to another OT.
14. Mr C contacted the Council on 28 February to request an OT assessment stating he was unhappy with the above. The Council’s Duty OT telephoned Mr C on the same day to obtain further information. Mr C advised he had been contacted by the Borough Council housing team and told he did not have a medical need for a move. Mr C said he did not think the current (2018) OT report reflected his level of need.
15. The Council’s OT contacted the Borough Council on 2 March. It was noted the Borough Council did not consider the use of a CPAP machine required an additional bedroom. The OT noted the previous OT assessment did not mention this or carer needs/sleeping difficulties and so placed Mr C’s case for allocation for reassessment to consider these issues. The Council provided an email update Mr C the same day.
16. The Council allocated an OT to Mr C on 5 July who visited him on 11 July. A Housing Needs Report was completed following this visit and emailed to Mr C on 24 August. Mr C contacted the Council to say he disagreed with the content of this report.
17. The Council subsequently amended the Housing Needs Report. The updated report contained further detail about the space required, including that any identified two-bedroom property would have to be sufficiently large to accommodate two single beds, and wheelchair accessibility, within the main bedroom. Alternatively, a three-bedroom property was recommended. This report also included an alternative recommendation of adapting the existing property to make the main bedroom larger.
18. The Council provided a copy of the amended Housing Needs Report to Mr C on 1 September. Mr C confirmed he was happy with this report which was emailed to the Borough Council the same day.
19. Mr C had made a complaint about the original Housing Needs Report in mid-August. The Council responded to Mr C on 12 September and upheld his complaint. The Council accepted the initial Housing Needs Report did not adequately describe his needs and provided an apology.
20. The Council says it recognises Mr C faces challenges at his current property due to his medical condition and that a solution of either rehousing or an extension cannot be achieved quickly. The Council has made further recommendations to alleviate risks in the interim. These included the identification of a suitable chair and agreement to use direct payments for this. The Council also ordered seated transfer boards to alleviate the physical impact/injury to Mr C’s foot and ankle when transferring from one seated surface to another. The Council has also offered to provide a profiling bed although it accepts there is currently limited space in his current property to accommodate this. The Council has offered to trial having a bed in Mr C’s living room instead if he wished to do so.
21. The Council arranged regular online video meetings from the end of October with Mr C and the Borough Council to discuss progress and plan next steps. At the time of the Council’s response to the Ombudsman in mid-February 2024, the most recent meeting had noted Mr C did not wish to be considered for extensive adaptations within his current property and wished to be rehoused. Given the estimated costs of the work at £90,000 and Mr C’s wishes it was decided it was no longer reasonable and practical to continue with the proposed adaptations.
22. The Council sent a recommendation to the Borough Council for it to consider raising Mr C’s prioritisation and to explore the need for a three-bedroom property. The Borough Council confirmed it had raised Mr C’s priority from Level 1 to Level 4 on 9 February.
23. The Council has confirmed as well as supporting Mr C’s increase in priority for rehousing the OT will continue to support him in ensuring the property is able to meet his long-term needs.

My consideration

24. Although a finely balanced decision, there is not enough evidence to find Mr C raised concerns with the Council’s OT service in July 2022 that required a reassessment of his 2018 Housing Needs Report. Mr C’s subsequent email in December 2022 was sent to the Borough Council with a copy to the Council and only suggested a new set of recommendations if the OT felt this was appropriate.
25. However, Mr C provided additional information directly to the Council on 20 January 2023. The Council advised further assessment was not required as the previous recommendations were still considered appropriate. I consider this was a missed opportunity.
26. Mr C made clear to the Council in his contact at the end of February that he considered the 2018 Housing Needs Report no longer reflected his needs.
27. It was only at this point that the Council placed Mr C’s case for allocation to an OT for reassessment of the new issues raised. I note this new information had been provided to the Council by Mr C in January.
28. The Council did not complete a reassessment until July. The Council then produced a Housing Needs Report it has accepted in its complaint correspondence did not adequately describe Mr C’s needs. An updated report was not completed until September.
29. Based on the information provided, I consider there has been avoidable delay by the Council during the period January to September 2023. I cannot say Mr C would have been accommodated in a property that would have met his needs sooner but for the above delay given the short supply of social housing and that demand far outstrips supply in many areas. However, I am satisfied the avoidable delay has caused Mr C distress and uncertainty about whether an earlier updated Housing Needs Report could have led to an improved housing priority sooner.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. The Council has agreed to take the following action to provide a suitable remedy for Mr C within one month of my final decision:

• provide a written apology to Mr C for the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by the delay outlined above; and
• make a symbolic payment of £400 to Mr C to recognize this distress and uncertainty.

31. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action above provides a suitable remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman