Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not dealt properly with occupational therapy assessments and adaptions to her property, causing avoidable distress. The Council is not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has delayed dealing with occupational therapy assessments and implementing adaptions for her property.
2. Miss X says she has suffered avoidable distress and delay to her housing modifications.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated that part of Miss X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with Occupational Therapy (OT) assessments.
6. I have not investigated the issue of adaptions to Miss X’s property as this matter has already been investigated and addressed by the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened?

9. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
10. Miss X lived in a property managed by STAR Housing, which operates as an arms length management company on behalf of the Council. The Council is ultimately Miss X’s landlord.
11. Miss X had requested adaptions to her property in 2020. The Housing Ombudsman has found that STAR Housing failed to deal with the issue before November 2023.
12. STAR Housing began to explore the possibilities of making adaptions to Miss X’s property.
13. Miss X was offered to view a property in December 2024 but this was unsuitable. At the viewing she was told another OT assessment would be necessary before adaptions could proceed.
14. Miss X complained to the Council and STAR Housing in January 2025.
15. The Council completed an OT assessment for Miss X’s daughter in January 2025.
16. In February 2025 STAR Housing provided its stage 1 complaint response, saying the previous OT referral had incorrectly said Miss X’s daughter required a wet room and new drawings had now been completed.
17. Miss X remained unhappy and escalated her complaint to the Council and STAR Housing, saying the most recent OT assessment did not reflect her daughter’s needs.
18. Miss X took her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman, who found fault by STAR Housing in regard of how it handled the issue of adaptions.

Analysis

19. The Council says, “OT services have been involved with the family over an extended period. The first assessment was recorded for [Miss X’s daughter] in November 2019. The Children’s OT team have completed multiple assessments during this time for [Miss X’s daughter] in response to changes in clinical presentation, functional ability, and risk.

Across these assessments, the OT has:

• Identified the significant impact of the home environment on [Miss X’s daughter]s safety, wellbeing, and daily functioning.
• Highlighted risks associated with fluctuating mobility, fatigue, seizure activity, night time safety, and behavioural dysregulation ensuring that [Miss X’s daughter] and her mother are supported to ensure [Miss X’s daughter] is safe, developing to her potential and any adaptations are part of this overall view.
• Made recommendations to support safety, dignity, and family functioning, including the need for additional bedroom space and consideration of ground floor facilities.
• Reviewed and updated recommendations when circumstances changed or when requested by housing partners.

OT recommendations throughout have been needs led, proportionate, and based on observed function, reported risk, and professional OT judgement at the time of assessment.

Normally an assessment is completed initially, which then initiates the adaptation once sent to the Housing Association. The delays in OT assessment are based on the delay within STAR Housing to complete the adaptation, which was the main outcome to be achieved. This meant that the STAR Housing requested more OT assessments even though the outcome remained to accommodate [Miss X’s daughter]s needs with an adaptation within the property.”

20. The Council also says, “In our view, the OT assessments are appropriate and meet expected practice rather than being inconsistent. As [Miss X’s daughter] grew her needs changed subtly, which needed to be accommodated. Variations in recommendations over time relate to:
• Changes in the child’s presentation, growth, health status, and functional ability.
• Evolving risk factors, including increased seizure activity and fatigue.
• Reassessment requests linked to housing processes.”
21. When Miss X escalated her complaint, she said her daughter’s needs remained the same as the initial OT assessment, but she was now struggling more with her mobility and tiredness. I consider this is consistent with the Council’s explanation for changes in recommendations.
22. It is clear the OT assessments completed by the Council were both at the request of STAR Housing, in order to inform its consideration of adaptions. I do not consider that there was any undue delay in completing the OT assessments.
23. This is not fault by the Council. The delays to adaptions being made to Miss X’s property were as a result of STAR Housing, as concluded by the Housing Ombudsman’s investigation.

Back to top

Decision

24. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman