Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms X’s request for adaptations. We are satisfied her application for rehousing was considered in line with the Council’s policy and she is in the correct band and so there is no fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains London Borough of Hounslow (the Council) failed to adapt her property using a disabled facilities grant (DFG). She also complains it failed to assess her application for rehousing correctly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. Ms X’s complaint is about housing problems she has been experiencing for a number of years. We have investigated her complaint from 2017 as this is when an occupational therapist assessed her. She has not explained why she did not complain to us sooner.
4. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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

6. I considered Ms A’s complaint to us, the Council’s response to her complaint and documents described in the following section. A colleague discussed the complaint with Ms A. Both parties received a draft of this statement and I took their comments into account.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council’s allocations policy prioritises applicants who need to transfer to a different property according to their medical and other needs. Applicants who need to move on medical grounds if their housing is highly unsuitable, but not life threatening or those households who lack one bedroom are placed in Band 2. Ms X’s household requires three bedrooms under the Council’s policy. Ms X has one adult son living with her and two other daughters who are both children. Her current property has two bedrooms.
8. An occupational therapist (OT) assessed Ms X in April 2017. He noted the property was unsuitable for Ms X who has physical disabilities. The OT noted Ms X could not use the stairs to get to the bathroom (which is upstairs) and could not walk more than a few steps. She has a bowel problem and has to use the toilet frequently. She uses a wheelchair outdoors. Ms X sleeps in the lounge downstairs and uses a commode. The OT recommended a level access ground floor or lifted property with two toilets and a shower.
9. Adaptations could not be done to Ms X’s home as they would need an extension which could not be done. The Council said it would rehouse Ms X to a property suitable for her needs. The Council’s medical adviser recommended Ms X for Band 2 for a ground floor or lifted accessible property with a shower and two toilets. The Council gave Ms X a priority date of April 2017 which was the date of the OT assessment.
10. Ms X emailed the housing team in November 2017 to say she was still using a commode and sleeping downstairs. She said she was suffering greatly and had no privacy. The Council considered Ms X’s email and decided there was no change in circumstances and so no change to her priority. Ms X complained.
11. The Council did not uphold Ms X’s complaint. It said an OT had assessed her and recommended level access and a walk-in shower and separate toilet. Her home could not be extended to accommodate the adaptations and so she needed to move. She had priority 2 on medical grounds. She needed a wheelchair accessible property on the ground floor or with a lift. There was a high demand for these types of properties.
12. Since complaining to us, Ms X has put in an application to buy her property. So her housing application is currently suspended. This is normal practice. The Council told me if she does not buy the property, her priority will be reinstated.

Back to top

Final decision

13. There is no fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms X’s case. An occupational therapist assessed her and set out the adaptations needed. These could not be done to her current property. The medical adviser assessed Ms X’s application for rehousing and placed her in the correct band in line with the allocations policy. The priority date is April 2017 and this is correct as it is when the OT assessed Ms X. Ms X complains she has been waiting for several years for a suitable property. But, there is no legal requirement to house her within a given timescale and waiting times for family-sized properties in London are lengthy because demand outstrips supply. There is no fault in the Council’s failure to rehouse Ms X sooner. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

14. I did not investigate the decision not to provide Ms X with adaptations outside the DFG framework. This complaint is for the Housing Ombudsman as it is about the management of social housing.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman