Summary: The Council allocated Miss X accommodation which could not be adapted to meet her needs. As a result Miss X had to live in unsuitable accommodation and was put to unnecessary time and trouble pursuing her complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Miss X £7030 to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has failed properly to consider her urgent need to move. She also complains the Council will only let her bid for ground floor properties when the County Council’s social care department has confirmed it will install a stair-lift. She says this is stopping her making a successful bid for a property.
2. Miss X says she has suffered falls at her property and bathing facilities were inadequate. Miss X also says she lacked a bedroom for her overnight carers which meant her young son had to stay elsewhere and this has had a detrimental impact on their relationship.

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 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 spoken to Miss X’s representative about her complaint and considered the information she has provided to the Ombudsman. This includes discussions with another Investigator from the Ombudsman.
6. I have considered the Council’s response to our enquiries which includes information held on Miss X’s housing file. I have also considered information we have received from the County Council which has been shared with the Council.
7. I have written to Miss X and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

8. 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))
9. 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))

10. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
11. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
12. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

The Council’s scheme

13. The Council places housing applicants into three priority bands with Band A being the highest banding and Band C the lowest.
14. A person can be awarded Band A if they “need to move on urgent medical grounds or urgent grounds relating to disability”.
15. Band B can be awarded to applicants needing “one additional bedroom compared to their current accommodation”. Band B cannot be awarded to people who need to move on medical grounds.
16. Band C can be awarded to applicants “needing to move on moderate medical grounds or moderate grounds relating to disability”.
17. The Council’s policy says:

“Urgent Medical Priority (including grounds relating to disability and access needs and/or learning disability) [will] be determined by the Council’s Medical Adviser or a company commissioned by the Council to provide medical advice on written evidence and taking into account all known facts relating to the application. It is important to note that urgent priority will not be given based upon the medical evidence itself, it will be based upon the impact it has upon the homeseeker’s housing requirements and whether the homeseeker’s current accommodation is directly contributing to the deterioration of the homeseeker’s health. It will be considered based on the extent that the health of a homeseeker, or an immediate member of their family, will significantly improve by a move to alternative accommodation”.

What happened

18. Miss X was applied for housing with the Council on medical grounds. The Council allocated Miss X a property in April 2017. The Council needed to carry out some adaptations to the property before Miss X could move in. This included work to the bathroom and installing a ramp to the front door of the property. Work to the bathroom was completed but the Council was unable to install a ramp to the property and the work did not go ahead.
19. Miss X applied to the Council for housing on 28 September 2017. In her application she said needed to move as her home was not suitable for her medical needs. Miss X said she struggled to access the property due to the number of steps. Miss X indicated her need to move could be confirmed by an occupational therapist and that she was receiving support from a local hospice.
20. On 29 September 2017 the local hospice wrote to the Council setting out the support it provides to Miss X. The hospice said Miss X has “multiple complex diagnoses… [and] requires constant supervision as she is prone to episodes of sudden collapse and unconsciousness due to a catastrophic drop in blood pressure”. The hospice said Miss X’s “current accommodation is not suitable for her needs… and this will become only more of an issue as her condition progresses. She currently requires wheelchair access to her property and at the moment this is not available to her as she has steps to the front door, consequently she has fallen outside her house”.
21. The hospice went on to say that Miss X “requires 24 hour care, with her night carer providing care 2-3 times a night as necessary. As this is a 2 bedroom property, the carer has to sleep on an inflatable mattress on the lounge floor each night. This causes issues when [Miss X] wishes to have friends round, as it compromises her dignity as there is no alternative room for her carer. It is also unsuitable for her carer to be sleeping in this manner”.
22. The Council wrote to Miss X on 13 October 2017 to say her application had been registered in Band B and she was entitled to 2 bedroom accommodation. The Council said Miss X could appeal if she disagreed with its decision.
23. On 1 November 2017 Miss X’s social worker from the County Council wrote to the Council to say Miss X required a third bedroom as she had a carer who stayed overnight.
24. On 2 November 2017 the County Council’s occupational therapist assessed Miss X’s current accommodation and found it did not meet her needs. The occupational therapist said Miss X required a three bedroom property to accommodate her son and a “live in/sleep in carer”. The occupational therapist said stairs in the property “needs to have an adequate space at the bottom and top landing to fit a stairlift in future if needed”.
25. The occupational therapist said the current property was not suitable because:
• There was no bedroom for the live in/sleep in carer.
• There were “numerous” steps to the front of the property.
• The bathroom was too small to accommodate suitable bathing equipment and there was limited room for a carer to support Miss X in the bath.
• Miss X was unable to access the garden to spend quality time with her son.
• There were lots of raised steps indoors.
26. On 5 December 2017 the Council’s Medical Advisor considered the occupational therapists report of 2 November 2017 and the letter from Miss X’s social worker dated 1 November 2017. The Medical Advisor said Miss X was entitled to an extra bedroom for an overnight carer but should only be considered for ground floor properties.
27. The Council wrote to Miss X on 5 January 2018 and said her application would remain in Band B due to her need for an additional bedroom. The Council said Miss X’s medical needs would only entitle her to Band C. The Council said Miss X could bid for three bedroom properties but it would only consider her for ground floor accommodation.
28. On 10 January 2018 Miss X appealed the Council’s decision to restrict her to ground floor accommodation. Miss X said the County Council were able to fund a stairlift if a suitable property could be found.
29. The Council sought further advice from an external Medical Advisor. On 13 February 2018 the external Medical Advisor wrote to the Council saying he had considered “the applicants own declarations” as well as “file notes” and supporting letters dated 24 March 2015, 29 September 2017 and 1 November 2017.
30. The external Medical Advisor said accommodation for Miss X should be “level throughout” and that the current accommodation did not meet her needs.
31. The Council wrote to Miss X on 23 February 2018 with its decision on her review request. The Council said the external Medical Advisor’s “recommendation on medical grounds was for future housing needs for accommodation to be level throughout. This recommendation supports the view of the Council’s internal Medical Advisor”. The Council said Miss X would only be considered for ground floor accommodation.
32. In response to our enquiries the Council said:

“As far as the Council is aware, there is no documentation on file to say that [the County Council] have committed to fitting/funding a stairlift.  If such confirmation is provided then the Council would consider this accordingly”.

33. Miss X’s social worker says a further letter was sent to the Council on 15 November 2017 when he received no acknowledgement to the letter of 1 November 2017. The letter dated 15 November 2017 says the County Council “would be working towards a full OT assessment of equipment and adaptations to ensure safety and wellbeing”.
34. The Council says it did not receive the social workers letter of 15 November 2017. The Council wrote to the Ombudsman on 13 July 2018 to say it would consider further evidence from the social worker. The Council said it would speak to the County Council regarding this.
35. On 20 July 2018 the Council wrote to Miss X to say it had reconsidered its decision on her housing application and awarded her with Band A. The Council said this was based on evidence Miss X had already provided. The Council said it would still only consider Miss X for ground floor accommodation.
36. The Council wrote to the Ombudsman on 4 September 2018 in response to our further enquiries. The Council said it’s internal Medical Advisor had considered the evidence from the County Council and advised:
37. “The medical evidence continues to support that [Miss X] is not safe on the stairs because of her risk of falls. If a stairlift was fitted then a house could be suitable for her although with her combination of difficulties it would need to be confirmed by an Occupational Therapist that [Miss X] could safely use a stair lift. The issue of who would be responsible for the funding of the stair lift would also need to be addressed.”
38. The Council said it had spoken to the County Council who had confirmed the availability of funding for the stairlift if needed.
39. Miss X was rehoused in a three bedroom property in December 2018.
40. I wrote to the Council and Miss X’s representative in March 2019 with a draft decision. I was critical of the Council for failing to properly consider advice from the County Council which said Miss X would use a stairlift in future. I recommended the Council pay Miss X £4000 for having to live in unsuitable accommodation for longer than she should have.
41. In response to my draft decision the Council said Miss X should not have expressed an interest in the property it allocated her in April 2017 if it was not suitable for her needs. I asked the Council for more information about the circumstances in which that offer was made.
42. The Council responded saying it had identified that adaptations had not been made to the property allocated to Miss X in April 2017. The Council said it was unable to adapt the property to meet Miss X’s needs and so it should not have been allocated to her in the first place. The Council asked for my view on an appropriate remedy.

My findings

43. The Council has accepted that it should not have allocated Miss X the property in April 2017. This is because it could not be adapted to meet her needs. The Council identified this after Miss X moved in but no further action was taken at the time. As a result Miss X had to live in accommodation which was not suitable for her mobility and health needs. Miss X suffered a number of falls whilst living in the property.
44. In total Miss X lived in the accommodation for 18 months. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says we will usually recommend the Council pays between £150 to £350 for every month a person is in unsuitable accommodation. In this case the Council has agreed to pay £350 per month given the documented impact the accommodation had on Miss X.
45. There was also a period of two months (April to May 2017) when Miss X was unable to move into the accommodation due to delays in other adaptations as well as other repair works. The Council has not charged Miss X rent for this period. However, Miss X was charged full Council Tax for this period. The Council has agreed to pay an amount equivalent to this (£229.40).
46. Miss X and her representative (her mother) have had to pursue the Council regarding this matter for almost two years. The Council only accepted fault as a result of my draft decision and enquiries made by my colleague. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X £500 to reflect the time and trouble caused as a result of this.

Agreed action

47. The Council will write to Miss X to apologise for leaving her in unsuitable accommodation for 18 months and failing to acknowledge this earlier. The Council will also write to Miss X’s mother with a similar apology as she has been representing her daughter throughout this process.
48. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X £7030. This includes an amount to recognise the avoidable distress caused from living in unsuitable housing, the unnecessary time and trouble pursuing this matter and Council Tax she should not have paid.
49. The Council should take this action as soon as possible and not later than 8 weeks from the date of my final decision.
50. The Council has also agreed to a joint working protocol with the County Council regarding housing applicants with medical needs. This should allow for closer working between the councils to ensure applicant’s housing needs are properly assessed at the point of application.
51. The Council should produce this protocol within six months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault causing injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is a suitable way of remedying this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman