Summary: Mrs C says the Council was wrong to register her for four-bedroom adapted properties. The Council was not at fault for registering Mrs C for four-bedroom properties but failed to consider her appeal about the requirement for a level access shower. That caused Mrs C frustration and uncertainty. An apology and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complained about the way the Council considered her housing register appeal. Mrs C complained the Council unreasonably refused to allow her to bid on properties unless they have four bedrooms and have been adapted when she has provided evidence to show the family only need three bedrooms and do not need adaptations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mrs C disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended and 34(3))
3. 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs C's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• considered Mrs C’s comments on my draft decision; and
• gave the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs C lives with her husband and two teenage children in a two-bedroom property. Family members have various disabilities and Mrs C’s husband requires a separate bedroom due to the pain he experiences from his medical conditions. Mrs C applied for rehousing with what was Suffolk Coastal District Council. This is now East Suffolk Council. Under that council’s allocations policy appeals against banding decisions are considered by other local authorities. In this case the Council considered the appeal against Suffolk Coastal District Council’s decision to award band A priority for a four-bedroom property with a level access shower.
6. When Mrs C put in her appeal she said in an ideal world a four-bedroom property with a level access shower would be her preferred choice. Mrs C said because there were only relatively few properties of that size she would accept a three-bedroom property with a bath lift rather than a level access shower. The Council considered her appeal and upheld the decision to keep the application in band A with a room entitlement of four bedrooms. The Council’s appeal decision did not refer to the requirement for a level access shower.

Analysis

7. Mrs C says the Council is unreasonably refusing to allow her to bid on properties unless they have four bedrooms and have been adapted. Mrs C say she has provided evidence to the Council to show her family does not require adaptations and only needs three bedrooms.
8. I understand since the complaint to the Ombudsman Mrs C has provided medical evidence from the GP which shows the family do not need a level access shower. I also understand Mrs C has provided evidence to show her son is seeking accommodation in his own right. Those changes have resulted in the council responsible for Mrs C’s housing register application changing her entitlement to three bedrooms in a non-adapted property. That is the outcome Mrs C was seeking. What I am considering though is whether the Council should have made those amendments to Mrs C’s housing register application in response to her appeal. What is key is therefore what information Mrs C provided the Council with between the submission of her initial housing register application in September 2018 and the appeal decision in February 2019.
9. Having considered the original housing register application I note Mrs C said various members of her household had medical needs. Mrs C also said she was seeking either a three or four-bedroom property and her husband required a separate bedroom. Mrs C provided a letter from her GP which said the family needed a four-bedroom property. As Mrs C has a son and daughter over the age of 10 the Council correctly prioritised the family for a four-bedroom property. I cannot criticise it for doing that given it is in line with the allocations policy and reflected the information Mrs C had provided to the Council at the time.
10. In terms of the level access shower I note the housing application form completed by Mrs C said her family needed a property with a level access shower. However, when Mrs C wrote to the Council to request an appeal in December 2018 she said a level access shower was not a priority, although it would not be ideal. I would expect the Council to have explored that point further given none of the medical evidence I have seen said the family required a level access shower. However, the Council’s decision on Mrs C’s appeal referred only to its view that she should remain in band A with a room entitlement of four bedrooms. The letter did not refer to her request for the removal of the requirement for a property with a level access shower. Failure to consider that point when it was raised in the appeal is fault.
11. I cannot say though that Mrs C would have received an offer of accommodation if the Council had properly considered whether to continue to consider Mrs C only for properties with a level access shower. That is because Mrs C would still have been registered for four-bedroom properties at that point and I am not convinced earlier removal of the level access shower requirement would have resulted in an offer of accommodation. As I do not have a copy of the medical assessment completed by Suffolk Coastal District Council I also do not know whether the medical adviser recommended a property with a level access shower, irrespective of what Mrs C had asked for. In those circumstances I consider Mrs C’s injustice is limited to her frustration and uncertainty about whether the situation would have been different if the Council had considered her point about the level access shower. To remedy that I recommend the Council apologise. I also recommend the Council ensure in future when considering appeals it considers each point of appeal raised by the applicant and addresses those points in any decision letter.

Back to top

Recommended action

12. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mrs C for failing to consider her request for the Council to remove the requirement for any property to have a level access shower; and
• send a memo to officers dealing with appeals to remind them of the need to consider each point of appeal and address those points in any decision letter.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused an injustice to Mrs C. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy her injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman