Summary: HOS found the Council has provided reasonable redress for Ms X’s complaint regarding works to her kitchen. LGSCO did not find fault in how the Council assessed whether Ms X’s property could be adapted to meet her needs. LGSCO found fault in how the Council decided Ms X’s priority for rehousing in 2022. Both Ombudsmen found fault with the Council’s complaint handling. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, make payments, and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council:
1. Failed to complete refurbishment works to her kitchen because of her disability.
2. Failed properly to consider adapting the property to meet her needs as a Disabled person.
3. Failed to tell her she could apply for Disabled Facilities Grant for adaptations.
4. Failed to provide aids and equipment.
5. Delayed correcting inaccurate personal details, delaying her applying for rehousing.
6. Wrongly assessed her application for rehousing as Band B in 2022.
7. Failed to backdate the award of Band A in October 2023.
8. Delayed dealing with her complaints.
2. As a result, Ms X says she has been living in unsuitable accommodation where she cannot access a bathroom or toilet for four years.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, we 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. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. Injustice may include distress, inconvenience or being put to avoidable time and trouble. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The LGSCO considers whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The HOS considers the evidence and establishes if there has been any ‘maladministration’, including circumstances where a landlord behaved unreasonably, treated the complainant in an inappropriate manner of failed to comply with its obligations. (Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
6. The HOS Dispute Resolution Principles are ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’ – we will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
7. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
8. If the LGSCO is 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)
9. Following an investigation, the HOS may order a member landlord to take steps to put things right. (Paragraphs 54-55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)

Scope of our investigation

10. 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 and Paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
11. We have investigated Ms X’s complaints about matters since April 2022. We have not considered matters earlier than this, as we consider Ms X could have complained to us sooner. We have exercised discretion to consider matters from April 2022 as Ms X was in regular contact with the Council and would reasonably have allowed some time for the Council to resolve issues before bringing a complaint. She was in contact with several different departments and her local councillor. Ms X only became aware of her complaint at f) above in October 2023, so this complaint is not late.

Back to top

How we considered this complaint

12. Ms X’s complaint covers matters that fall into the jurisdiction of both the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS).
13. Each Ombudsman has therefore investigated the parts of the complaint which are within its jurisdiction and jointly considered the parts of the complaint that fell within both jurisdictions. This decision statement covers both investigations.
14. HOS has investigated the complaint at a) above.
15. LGSCO has investigated the complaints at b) to g).
16. HOS and LGSCO have jointly investigated the complaint at h).

Back to top

What we found

Housing allocations

17. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating properties.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14)).
18. The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority).
19. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band A to applicants with an urgent need to move who need adapted housing due to a physical disability.
20. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band B to all other applicants who need adapted housing because of physical disability.
21. The Council’s scheme divides applicants into queues based on their housing need. Of relevance to this complaint, this includes a Physical Disability Queue (PDQ).

Disabled adaptations

22. Disabled facilities grants (DFG) are provided under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. These include enabling the disabled person to access their home and essential facilities within the home, like bathrooms, bedrooms, and kitchens.
23. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, appropriate for the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.
24. Whether and what work is necessary and appropriate is usually decided by an Occupational Therapist or other assessor. Whether any works are reasonable and practicable depends on the condition and layout of the property.
25. According to the information on the Council’s website, its tenants do not need to apply for a DFG. The process of assessment by an Occupational Therapist is the same for all tenure types. For Council tenants, it says:

“If you are a council tenant a DFG application is not required and we do not need to carry out a means test. The OT will pass details of the adaptation work required to us and we will pay for the works.”

26. The Council’s Home Improvement Agency (HIA) deals with all referrals for adaptations made by an OT for all tenure types, following the same process.

Background

27. Ms X is Disabled. She uses a wheelchair and experiences chronic and severe pain.
28. Ms X is a tenant of the Council. She moved into her current property in 2020. The property is over two floors. Ms X only uses the ground floor. She cannot access any of the rooms upstairs, including the bathroom and toilet.
29. The ground floor of the property consists of a reception room which Ms X uses as her bedroom, a kitchen-diner, which Ms X uses as both kitchen and living room, and a utility room.
30. Ms X uses a commode and has strip washes to meet her toileting and bathing needs.

What happened

31. Ms X contacted the Council twice in April 2022 to say that she could not log in to apply online for a transfer. She said she had tried using the online form to tell the Council about the problem but the Council did not acknowledge it.
32. In July 2022, Ms X told her local councillor that she still had not been able to access the application form online.
33. In early September 2022, the Council told Ms X it had corrected a mistake in her date of birth on its system. It was because her date of birth was wrongly recorded that she had been unable to apply for social housing online. The Council apologised to Ms X about this.
34. Ms X applied to join the housing register a few weeks later. In her application she said her property was unsuitable for her disability and so she needed to move.
35. In late September 2022, an OT and an officer from the Council’s Home Improvement Agency (HIA) visited Ms X to consider the feasibility of adapting her property. The resulting report said:
• It was not feasible to provide wheelchair access to the front of the property. There was not enough space for a ramp of the length that would be necessary.
• The door to the kitchen could not be widened for wheelchair access.
• The utility room was not big enough to adapt into a level access shower.
• The first-floor bathroom could be adapted but Ms X could not access the first floor because there was not enough space for a stairlift or through floor lift.
36. The OT sent a rehousing report to the allocations team. This said Ms X needed a fully wheelchair accessible property.
37. In early October 2022, the allocations service asked the OT to comment on whether Ms X should have additional priority on the Physical Disability Queue. The OT said they did not know how the Council decided priority but “we have been unable to provide her with temporary toileting/bathing facilities, I feel client’s physical health and mental wellbeing are being negatively impacted and priority should be awarded to the case.”
38. The records show the allocations officer spoke to the OT. The note says that because Ms X sometimes used a walking frame to get around inside the property, her case did not require additional priority. It decided Ms X qualified for Band B under the allocations scheme.
39. In late 2022, the Council was delivering a scheme of kitchen and bathroom regeneration on Ms X’s estate. In November 2022, the contractors visited Ms X’s property to start the works. However, they found that Ms X had not removed her kitchen appliances, including her sofa frame, fridge, and washing machine. She explained she could not do this because of her disability.
40. The Council says its contractors did offer to move these for Ms X. Ms X says they left and did not complete the works.
41. In December 2022, the Council provided a response to Ms X’s local councillor about the kitchen refurbishment. This said that it had not progressed because Ms X had not cleared the space. It said that because the property was entirely unsuitable for Ms X, and she needed to move, it would not now replace the kitchen and bathroom until Ms X had moved out.
42. Ms X complained to the Council on 4 July 2023. On 17 July 2023, the Council acknowledged the complaint, and on 20 July 2023, it apologised that her complaint had not been acknowledged sooner. It explained that this was due to the complaint going to its junk email folder. It apologised for this error. It further noted that, due to the complexity of the complaint, it anticipated that its investigation may take 20 working days. It therefore intended to provide its stage one response by 1 August 2023.
43. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint on 1 August 2023. The Council’s response said:
• The works had not proceeded due to too many large items remaining in the kitchen.
• It accepted it would have been a reasonable adjustment for Ms X’s disability for the contractors to have moved Ms X’s appliances to lay the floor. It would arrange further training for its staff on reasonable adjustments.
• It considered whether she should be decanted temporarily but decided this was not realistic because the property was generally unsuitable for Ms X’s needs.
• The Council made that decision when it thought she would be rehoused quickly and had it “been aware that you would be there for longer, [its] decision would have been different.”
• The error with her date of birth was corrected in September 2022.
• It would now arrange the works to the kitchen and bathroom.
• It offered £300 as a remedy.
44. On 2 August 2023, Ms X escalated her complaint. She also expressed her concerns that the repairs to the kitchen had been outstanding since December 2020.
45. The Council provided its stage two response on 22 August 2023. The Council said that it did not have records of the repairs prior to October 2021. It repeated that it would proceed with the kitchen and bathroom works and would liaise with her regarding a decant during the works. It also repeated its offer of £300 compensation.
46. The parties liaised about the proposed works. However, because of the inconvenience a decant presented, the parties agreed not to proceed with the works.
47. In September 2023, Ms X asked the Council whether there was a way for her to challenge the outcome of the OT assessment on feasibility from September 2022. She said she believed a wet room could be installed in the utility room.
48. In early October 2023, the HIA asked the allocations service whether Ms X’s priority on the housing register could be improved. The allocations service said it had considered additional priority a year ago, but it was not “deemed necessary” at the time. It asked whether the OT recommended priority rehousing. The OT said Ms X’s circumstances were not good. She had no access to adequate bathing facilities and neither the OT nor HIA could provide any adaptations or aids so her move should be a priority.
49. The Council reassessed Ms X’s application and, based on the recommendation from the HIA and OT, increased her priority to Band A from October 2023.
50. Ms X complained to the Council in December 2023. She said her priority had changed from Band B to Band A, but the Council did not tell her about this change. She said the change should be backdated to 2022 when she first joined the housing register because her circumstances had not changed.
51. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint at stage one of its process in January 2024. It said:
• It exercised its discretion to increase her priority in October 2023 based on the new information from the OT and HIA.
• It told her councillor about the change but accepted it did not tell Ms X. It apologised and said it would now send her a letter telling her about the change.
• It said that even if it had awarded Band A in 2022, Ms X would not have been successful in bidding for a property. This was because all the properties offered to applicants on the PDQ in Band A had priority dates from before Ms X applied or were for properties on the second floor or higher.
52. Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two the same day.
53. The Council did then send Ms X a letter telling her about the change in priority to Band A. This letter set out Ms X’s right to ask for a review of this decision.
54. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint at stage two in late March 2024. It said:
• The mistake in her date of birth did prevent her submitting a housing application.
• Ms X had told the Council about this in April 2022 and so the date on her application should have been April, not September, 2022.
• Its decision to award Band A was an exercise of its discretion. It was not fault for it to have made a different decision in 2022.
55. Ms X complained to the Ombudsmen.

Findings

56. We set out our findings on the complaint in the order they appear in paragraph one.

Kitchen works

57. The Council is responsible for repairs to the kitchen. Ms X says the Council has known about these repairs since December 2020. However, the Council has noted it has no record of repair reports from that time. Given that this was over 12 months before her formal complaint, this is outside of the scope of this investigation.
58. The Council says it became aware of the repairs in October 2021. Rather than complete the works as a responsive repair, it advised that a full kitchen replacement would take place as part of an upcoming programme of works. The Housing Ombudsman understands that social landlords have finite resources and should seek to avoid unnecessary repeats of work. While waiting for the programme of works meant an extended delay, given that the kitchen remained functional, it was reasonable for the Council to approach the works in this way.
59. The Council’s contractor visited the property before starting the works to assess what needed to be done. Ms X told the contractor about her disability and that she used the kitchen and utility room as a living space. While she could move some items, she could not move the white goods or her sofa frame. Ms X says that the contractors agreed to move all the remaining items into the kitchen during works to the utility room, then swap them over when working on the kitchen. This was an appropriate solution that reflected Ms X’s needs. However, this agreement was not recorded, nor did the contractor tell the Council about it. This demonstrates a lack of robust systems in place for communication with the contractor and the Council. Additionally, given that the Council was aware of Ms X’s disability and living situation, it should have proactively ensured that arrangements for the works took this into account. This did not happen.
60. When the contractors attended in November 2022, they did not complete the works because of the items that remained in the kitchen and utility room. In its formal response, the Council advised that it was “standard procedure” for all items to be removed in preparation for works. While this may be the case, the Council should consider a resident’s disabilities and whether it should adjust its standard procedures accordingly. The Council’s failure to do this would have been frustrating for Ms X.
61. The Council noted that its contractor had offered to move the items into Ms X’s living room while works were undertaken. However, this was unsuitable as Ms X was using the living room as a bedroom. While this demonstrates that some attempt to resolve the situation was made at the time, the Council was aware of Ms X’s living situation and so should have ensured suitable arrangements were formalised prior to the works commencing, which it did not do.
62. The contractors subsequently left without completing any works. There is no evidence they told the Council that they had not completed the works to Ms X’s property. This further demonstrates a lack of robust systems in place for communication between the contractor and the Council. Ultimately, the Council still had a repair responsibility to fulfil regarding the damage to the kitchen reported some 12 months earlier. As it had raised Ms X’s expectations that a new kitchen would be installed, it should have been kept aware that no works went ahead, and it should have told Ms X what could therefore be done about the disrepair.
63. In its formal response, the Council acknowledged that it would have been a reasonable adjustment to move Ms X’s items for her. It was appropriate that the Council recognised it had failed in this regard, and it was also appropriate that it committed to further staff training to prevent the issue from happening again. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes. However, the Council stopped short of offering an apology for not having made reasonable adjustments, which was a missed opportunity to repair the landlord/tenant relationship with Ms X.
64. The Council also noted that it had contacted Ms X in December 2022 and had advised that, given that they considered that Ms X would be shortly leaving the property, no further works would be carried out to the kitchen until after she had left. The Council advised that this decision had been made to reduce any disruption for Ms X. While this was an appropriate consideration, it should have discussed this with Ms X before making a decision. Ultimately, the kitchen replacement was necessary to rectify the damage to her kitchen that she had previously reported. The Council still had a repair responsibility in this regard, and its failure to gain any understanding of the ongoing issues in the kitchen meant it failed to satisfy this responsibility. The Council also noted that the staff member had the “mistaken belief that an offer of alternative accommodation was imminent.” The Council did not explain, however, why they had such a belief given that no offer had been made. This would have been frustrating for Ms X and further demonstrated the impact of the Council’s failure to discuss the issue directly with her.
65. Given that the works remained outstanding, and in line with the expectations the Council had raised, it appropriately resolved to arrange for the full kitchen replacement to take place. It also agreed to the necessary reasonable adjustments for moving her possessions so the works could take place. Given that this would involve reengaging the contractors, it was reasonable that this process may take time to arrange, and the Council appropriately measured Ms X’s expectations that this was the case. The Council reiterated this commitment in its stage two response. While it was later agreed that the works were not possible without significant inconvenience and disruption, it was nevertheless appropriate that the Council offered these works as part of the resolution to its earlier failings.
66. In addition to offering the works, the Council offered £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience the issues had caused Ms X. It reiterated this offer in its stage two response. Given, however, that Ms X had raised multiple issues in addition to the kitchen works, it would have been helpful had the Council offered a breakdown of how it had calculated its offer. This would have allowed Ms X to understand what she was accepting the compensation for. In the absence of a breakdown, the Housing Ombudsman has worked under the assumption that the full offer was in relation to this element of the complaint.
67. The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance notes that compensation offers from £100 are appropriate for maladministration where there has been adverse impact on a resident but where the landlord has acknowledged its failings. In this case, the Council acknowledged it should have made reasonable adjustments, committed to relevant staff training, and subsequently reoffered the works with the relevant reasonable adjustments in place. In the Housing Ombudsman’s opinion, its offer of £300 was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by its earlier failings. HOS therefore finds reasonable redress has been made for this element of the complaint. HOS recommends below that the Council reiterate its offer of compensation if Ms X has not yet accepted this.

Disabled adaptations

68. LGSCO finds no fault in the OT assessment of whether Ms X’s property could be adapted. The Council considered the various alternatives suggested by Ms X, including making the utility room into a bathroom, before deciding the property could not be adapted to meet Ms X’s needs.

Disabled Facilities Grant

69. Anyone, of any housing tenure, can apply for a DFG. When the applicant is a council tenant, however, the cost of works come from a different budget. In this case, the Council uses the same process for all tenure types. The only difference is its tenants are not subject to the means test applied to other applicants.
70. In this case, therefore, there is no fault in the Council not telling Ms X she could apply for a DFG. The process is the same and so would not have led to a different outcome.

Aids and equipment

71. Ms X says she has no handles or grab rails at the rear of the property. She told us she needs equipment to help her get into and out of bed. There is no evidence Ms X raised these matters with the Council. Therefore, LGSCO finds no fault with the Council. However, the Council could consider contacting Ms X about any aids or adaptations that would help her.
72. Ms X also says she needs a special chair that elevates her legs and helps her with standing up. The records show the Council explained to Ms X that it could not provide or fund this. There is no fault by the Council.

Issue with date of birth

73. The Council accepted in response to Ms X’s complaint that it delayed correcting her date of birth on its system. Ms X told it in April 2022 and the Council did not correct it until September 2022. LGSCO agrees this delay of five months was fault. It delayed Ms X’s access to the housing register, which is an injustice.

Priority band

74. The Council assessed Ms X’s application as Band B in October 2022 because the OT said she sometimes used a walking frame to get around at home. However, this failed to consider that the OT said the reason Ms X’s application should have additional priority was because she had no access to a toilet or bathing facilities. Ms X’s use of a walking frame did not change this.
75. LGSCO finds fault with the Council’s assessment of Ms X’s priority in October 2022. Had it properly considered the information from the OT, it would have awarded Band A, as it did when provided with the same information from the OT in October 2023. Ms X missed out on a year of bidding with an increased priority as a result. This is a significant injustice to Ms X.
76. The Council should therefore backdate Ms X’s Band A priority to April 2022. From the evidence we have seen, it is unlikely that Ms X has missed out on an offer because of this fault. However, there is avoidable uncertainty, which is an injustice to Ms X.

Complaint handling

77. Ms X first complained to the Council in early July 2023. Ms X resent this complaint twice before the Council acknowledged it. In its acknowledgement, the Council said Ms X’s original complaint went into a ‘junk’ email folder.
78. The Council’s complaint policy in place at the time said it would respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days. The Council responded to Ms X on 1 August 2023, 11 days after it acknowledged her complaint but 27 days after she first made it. While the Council appropriately acknowledged the issue with the junk folder at the earliest opportunity and apologised, it nevertheless delayed the resolution to Ms X’s complaints. HOS and LGSCO find that this failure caused Ms X avoidable injustice.
79. Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its process the next day. The Council responded within the 20 working days set out in its policy and so there was no delay at this stage.
80. Ms X made a further complaint to the Council about her application for rehousing in late December 2023. The Council responded at stage one in late January 2024, 21 working days later. The Council’s policy at the time said if it needed more time at stage one, it would contact the complainant. There is no evidence it did so and so LGSCO and HOS find this delay amounted to a failing.
81. Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two on 24 January 2024. The Council responded on 27 March 2024. This was a delay of over a month and LGSCO and HOS find this also amounted to a failing.
82. These failings caused Ms X avoidable distress, frustration, and time and trouble, which are injustices to Ms X.

Back to top

Action required

HOS orders

83. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council should apologise to Ms X for the faults identified by both Ombudsmen.
84. The HOS orders that within four weeks of our final decision, the Council should pay Ms X compensation of £50 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its ineffective complaints handling.
85. The landlord should provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above orders.

HOS recommendations

86. The Council should reiterate its offer of £300 compensation made in relation to the kitchen works if Ms X has not yet accepted this.
87. In addition to staff training relating to reasonable adjustments, the landlord should conduct a review of its communication procedures with contractors to ensure relevant information about customer vulnerabilities is shared and addressed.

LGSCO recommended action

88. To remedy the injustice to Ms X, the Council should:
• Backdate Ms X’s Band A priority to April 2022.
• Pay Ms X £350 in recognition of her avoidable distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble.
89. The Council should provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

90. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, HOS found the Council offered reasonable redress for its maladministration in relation to the works to Ms X’s kitchen. LGSCO found fault with the Council’s handling of Ms X’s application for rehousing. LGSCO found no fault in the Council’s OT assessments. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, HOS has found service failure in relation to the Council’s handling of Ms X’s complaints. LGSCO also found fault in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s complaints. The action we have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman