Summary: There was fault by the Council. It cannot show that it properly considered medical information when it reviewed its decision on Ms B’s housing needs; and it took six months to complete its own occupational therapy assessment. Ms B did not miss out on housing as a result of the delay. The Council has apologised to Ms B and on my recommendation has remedied the impact on any households that did miss out on housing while waiting for an assessment. The Council has also reviewed its contingency planning so it can decide housing applications despite staff absence.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains that the Council failed to properly assess her housing needs or move her to a property that meets her need.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, 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 considered the information provided by the complainant. I have also considered the Council’s response to my enquiries including the correspondence between the parties and the Council’s file records. Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have taken these comments into account before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s housing allocation policy

6. The Council assesses an applicant’s housing need and puts the household in one of four bands. Band one is for those who have an urgent housing need. Band two is for households with a high housing need, including those whose medical condition will be improved by moving house. Band three is for those households who have medium medical priority.
7. The policy says that applicants requiring a move based on medical needs will be subject to a medical assessment and the Council will seek a medical expert’s opinion where necessary.
8. An applicant can ask the Council to review its decisions. The policy says the Council’s decision is final and can only be challenged further by going to court.

What happened

9. Ms B had a stroke in 2014. She now has severe weakness on one side of her body and continues to struggle with mobility and pain. She lives with her five children in a privately rented three-storey house. Ms B cannot manage the stairs and so she has to sleep on a mattress on the floor of the ground floor living room. She can access a ground floor toilet. There is damp and a leak from the first-floor bathroom so there is water on the floor. Ms B cannot help her children if they are upstairs. She applied to the Council for help with housing.
10. The Council placed her in band three. Ms B appealed this and sent the Council more medical information including a letter from the hospital Occupational Therapist (OT) agreeing her home is unsuitable. The Council took nearly two months to decide the appeal. It wrote to Ms B on 24 December to say it had not altered its decision. The Council said it would refer Ms B’s case to its own Housing OT. The OT would need to assess her housing need before the Council could alter her banding. Ms B says the Council’s appeal decision did not take into account all her medical circumstances. It referred only to an ankle injury and not her ongoing mobility problems.
11. Ms B complained to the Council, but it said that it could not deal with her complaint as she had the right to go to court about this for a judicial review and it referred her to the Ombudsman.
12. In response to our enquiries the Council has confirmed that:
• It referred the case to its Housing OT on 2 January 2019, but the OT was on long term sick leave, and so the Council had not assessed whether Ms B’s current property meets her mobility needs.
• It has not consulted a medical expert for an opinion. The application had been determined by its housing team.
• When staff are sick the Council cannot arrange cover for that role and the referrals have to wait until the officer returns to work. It contacted its OT service based in its social care department, but it had no capacity to take on housing OT assessments.
• It would have considered alternative approaches to completing housing OT assessments including a temporary appointment or paying for private OT assessments, but the Council’s Housing OT returned to work and planned to clear the backlog by the end of July 2019. On the OT’s return to work there were 17 OT assessments outstanding the oldest dating back to November 2018.
• The Council has not explained how it took into account the letter Ms B submitted with her appeal request.
13. The Council’s OT assessment was completed on 18 June 2019. She recommended a four-bedroom house with a stair lift and a level access shower, and level access to the property. The Council has placed Ms B in band 2 with effect from 29 October 2018. Only one four-bedroom property has become available during this time and it was allocated to a household with higher priority.
14. I asked the Council if it had considered whether Ms B is homeless because the property is not suitable for her. It said that Ms B is not homeless as she has a bed and access to a toilet and can strip wash.

Was there fault by the Council causing an injustice to Ms B?

15. There was fault by the Council. There is no evidence that it considered the Hospital OT information Ms B submitted when it decided her appeal.
16. It decided to get its own Housing OT to assess Ms B’s housing needs, but it did not do this. The OT was on long term sick leave, but this does not absolve the Council from its duty to properly assess Ms B’s housing needs in accordance with its policy. The Council’s failure to find an alternative way to assess housing needs while its OT was on sick leave was fault.
17. I have assessed the injustice to Ms B. She did not miss out on being rehoused due to the Council’s delay. Even if the Council had completed the OT assessment and placed in her band two in good time, Ms B would not have been rehoused as nothing suitable became available. However, the delay has caused Ms B worry and frustration, when she is already vulnerable and living in a difficult situation.

Agreed action

18. The Council has apologised to Ms B.
19. On my recommendation, the Council has also:
• Completed the outstanding OT assessments;
• Submitted to me details of the applicants whose OT assessment was delayed, whether this altered their priority and whether they would have been rehoused if the Council had not delayed;
• Offered the next available property to the family that missed out on being rehoused as a result of the Council’s delay; and
• Reviewed its contingency plans for staff absence essential to the housing allocations process, so that this type of delay does not recur.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council causing injustice to Ms B and to others in her situation. The Council has remedied the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman