Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to award her suitable priority on the housing register and unreasonably refused to adapt two properties she successfully bid on. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with Ms B’s housing priority. The Council delayed identifying it could not adapt one property which raised Ms B’s expectations and prevented her bidding on properties for three months. An apology is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused given the works the Council has completed at Ms B’s current property, as a gesture of goodwill.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, complained about the way the Council dealt with her housing register application. Ms B complained the Council:
• failed to award her suitable priority;
• unreasonably refused to adapt the property she successfully bid on in June 2018; and
• unreasonably refused to allocate a property she successfully bid on which could have been made suitable by allowing her to place a bed in the living room.

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 Ms B disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), 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 Ms B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• considered Miss B’s comments on my original draft decision and gave her the opportunity to comment on my revised draft decision; and
• considered the Council’s comments on my original draft decision and gave it the opportunity to comment on my revised draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Ms B is a Council tenant and has multiple health needs. In 2017 Ms B needed an operation on her back but could not have the operation as her property was unsuitable for her needs. The Council placed Ms B’s housing application in the gold band and gave her priority for level access, adapted properties. The Council told Ms B it would only consider her for properties that met her medical need. The Council assessed Ms B as needing a three bedroom ground floor wheelchair accessible property.
6. The Council told Ms B an occupational therapist would attend any property viewing to advise on the suitability of the property. The Council told Ms B this may mean it would not offer a property Ms B wanted to accept. The Council told Ms B if it decided a property was unsuitable it would offer it to the next applicant on the shortlist.
7. The Council completed a housing needs report. That recommended a level access property suitable for full-time wheelchair use such as ground floor flat with level access from the outside and no communal door. The Council later amended that to include three-bedroom houses which would allow for a through floor lift.
8. On 5 July 2018 Ms B bid on property A. Ms B received top priority. On 19 July an occupational therapist, an adviser from Shelter, a building surveyor and the Council’s lettings officer visited property A with Ms B. The occupational therapist confirmed Ms B needed a through floor lift, although she had to leave part way through the visit.
9. Later in July the building surveyor contacted the lettings team to confirm the Council’s contractors had agreed to adapt the property. Although the Council could not install a through floor lift it said it could create a wet room in the lean to at the side of the property.
10. A further visit to property A took place on 19 September. The Council drew up a new schedule of works.
11. On 3 October the building surveyor told the Council the original plan to adapt the lean to was not viable and the property would need more extensive works than previously anticipated. The building surveyor told the Council any outcome would still not fully meet Ms B’s medical needs.
12. On 4 October Shelter contacted the Council on Ms B’s behalf. Shelter told the Council Ms B could not have her back operation due to the accommodation issues. Shelter also told the Council Ms B’s health had declined which resulted in the Fire Brigade removing her from her current property the week before. Shelter said the hospital had serious concerns about discharging Ms B back to an unsafe property.
13. On 17 October the occupational therapist and contractor revisited property A. Both agreed the property, when adapted, would not meet Ms B’s medical needs as the finished layout would not allow full wheelchair access and would be a compromise.
14. On 29 October the Council told Ms B allocation of property A would not proceed because even with the adaptations it would not meet her medical needs.
15. On 31 January 2019 Ms B successfully bid for an adapted property. Ms B refused that offer.
16. On 6 February Ms B bid on property B. Ms B visited the property with a surveyor. The surveyor afterwards decided the property could not be adapted to Ms B’s needs. The Council therefore withdrew the offer.
17. Ms B asked the Council for an explanation of its decision to withdraw property B. The Council told Ms B it had not offered her property B as it did not consider it could adapt the property to meet her needs. The Council explained it could not offer a property which was not suitable.
18. On 18 July Ms B successfully bid for new build adapted property with a downstairs bedroom and ensuite wet room which meets her medical needs. The Council says it has carried out improvements to the property at Ms B’s request as a gesture of goodwill. The Council says the total cost of the works and goods purchases is £23,922. That includes installation of a block paved driveway and pathway to replace the front garden so Ms B can park in front of the property and provision of a new cooker.

The Council’s allocations policy

19. The allocations policy says the Council will assess each application to decide the household’s housing need. The Council then places the household into one of five bands:
• Emergency band: Urgent priority;
• Gold band: High priority;
• Silver band: Medium priority;
• Bronze band: Urgent/High/Medium priority but with reduced preference;
• Low need band: No priority.
20. The policy says the emergency band is intended to meet the needs of applicants in extreme circumstances and the Council will only issue it in certain situations where an applicant needs an urgent move to ensure their well-being or safety. It says emergency status is valid for six weeks only and the applicant is expected to accept the first suitable available property which they successfully bid for.
21. The policy outlines circumstances where emergency status may be awarded which includes where:
• an applicant has an extremely urgent medical assessment, as determined by a Housing Options team leader or manager or in more complex cases by the Council’s assessment panel;
• those applicants requiring urgent hospital discharge where their current accommodation is totally unsuitable for their needs.
22. The policy says the gold band is suitable for high medical needs directly relating to the applicant’s accommodation or need for accommodation as determined by a Housing Options team leader or manager, or by the Council’s assessment panel.
23. The policy says medical priority is only awarded where an applicant needs urgent re-housing due to a strongly evidenced, serious and enduring medical condition or disability, which is severely and permanently affected by their current accommodation.
24. The policy gives examples of severe medical need for the gold band which includes where:
• the applicant is housebound through mobility issues and moving to alternative accommodation would alleviate this;
• the applicant’s life is at risk;
• the applicant is unable to move around their current accommodation and cannot access kitchen or bathing facilities;
• a member of the household is severely disabled and needs substantial adaptations to help meet their needs but these cannot be carried out in their current accommodation.

Analysis

25. Ms B says the Council failed to give her enough priority on its housing register which has affected her ability to apply for properties. The evidence I have seen though satisfies me the Council placed Ms B in the gold band which is for high priority cases. That includes where an applicant is housebound and moving to alternative accommodation will relieve that, where an applicant cannot move around the current accommodation and cannot access kitchen or bathing facilities and where a member of the household is severely disabled and needs substantial adaptations to help meet their needs which cannot take place in the current accommodation. I am satisfied all three criteria apply to Ms B. I therefore consider the Council properly considered Ms B’s circumstances when awarding gold band priority.
26. The only category with greater priority than the gold band is the emergency band. The Council’s allocations policy makes clear this is for cases with urgent priority. The allocations policy also makes clear the Council will only issue that where an applicant needs an urgent move to ensure their well-being or safety. Emergency status is only valid for six weeks and an applicant is expected to accept the first suitable available property they successfully bid for. The Council’s allocations policy goes on to say for medical circumstances the emergency banding will only be suitable if an applicant has an extremely urgent medical assessment as determined by housing options team leader or manager or by the Council’s assessment panel in more complex cases.
27. As I said in paragraph 25, Ms B’s circumstances fall within gold band which is what the Council allocated. However, the file shows the Council knew in 2018 Ms B’s health had declined. The Council had information from Shelter which confirmed the Fire Brigade had to remove Ms B from her property in September 2018 as she could not get out. At that point she was in hospital and the hospital had said it could not discharge her back to her existing property as it was not suitable for her needs. In those circumstances I would have expected the Council to refer the case to a manager or the assessment panel to decide whether to award emergency banding status. I therefore consider the Council’s failure to do that fault. However, the case is complicated because despite what the hospital had said it discharged Ms B back to her property which suggests the hospital did not consider her accommodation unsuitable for her needs. I also consider even if Ms B had been in the emergency band it is unlikely, on the balance of probability, she would have received an earlier offer of accommodation. That is because the evidence I have seen satisfies me the reason Ms B did not get accommodation earlier is due to the lack of available suitable adapted properties. Whether Ms B was in the emergency or gold band the availability of suitable properties would not have increased. Ms B could have found herself in a worse position as when in the emergency band the Council would have expected her to accept the first suitable adapted property even if that was not one she wanted to move to. So, while I consider the Council should have looked at whether emergency banding was suitable for Ms B I do not consider failure to do that resulted in any injustice to her. The Council had placed Ms B in the gold band and placing her in the emergency band would not have affected her eligibility for suitable adapted properties.
28. Ms B says the Council unreasonably refused to adapt a property she successfully bid on in June 2018. Ms B says the occupational therapist visited that property and decided it was adaptable. Ms B says the Council was therefore wrong to change that decision in October 2018. In contrast, the Council says it offered the property to Ms B even though it knew the property was not suitable for a through floor lift because it was trying to identify a different adaptation which would make the property acceptable. The Council says it was only at the meeting in September 2018 that it identified issues with the ceiling height and substandard construction of the lean to which meant the proposed adaptations were not suitable.
29. I have carefully considered the documentary evidence. That satisfies me the Council decided it could not adapt the property as originally intended due to issues with the ceiling height and standard of construction of the lean to. As the Council reached that decision after visiting the property again in September 2018 with the occupational therapist and the supervisor of the specialist disabled adaptation contractors I cannot criticise it for deciding the proposed adaptations were not suitable. To do so I would have to comment on the merits of the various officers’ judgement. As I said in paragraph 2, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to comment on the merits of a decision unless it is affected by fault. I have found no evidence of fault in how the Council reached the decision it could not adapt the property as originally intended.
30. However, I am concerned about the time it took the Council to reach that position. The Council says it could not have identified issues with the ceiling height and the lean to at the visit in July 2018 because only a building surveyor attended and not an officer from the specialist disabled adaptation contractors who has greater experience. I am satisfied though that before the visit in July 2018 the Council knew the property as it stood was not suitable for Ms B. I am therefore satisfied the Council should have known the visit in July 2018 would have to assess what adaptations were suitable for Ms B and feasible for the property. Based on what the Council has now said, the building surveyor could not provide that advice. I therefore consider the Council at fault for not sending an officer who could decide what disabled adaptations could take place. If the Council had sent that officer on the July 2018 visit, or shortly after that, it is likely it would have identified issues with the proposed build at an earlier stage. Failing to do that raised Ms B’s expectations and the delay sending out a specialist contractor meant Ms B could not bid on properties which might have been suitable for her needs, or which the Council could have adapted for her needs, between July and October 2018. I could not say Ms B missed out on a property during that period though as that would depend on the properties available and whether the Council could adapt them. I therefore consider Ms B’s injustice is limited to her raised expectations and doubt about whether the outcome would have been different, but for the fault.
31. Ms B says the Council unreasonably refused to allocate a property she bid on when it could have been made suitable by allowing her to place a bed in the living room. Ms B says the Council told her she could not have the property because it did not allow conversion of living rooms into bedrooms. Ms B says the Council later told her this was a matter for the landlord to decide. Ms B therefore says the Council should not have refused to allocate the property to her as the Council was the landlord and she wanted to accept the property as it was.
32. I have carefully considered the documentary evidence. There is nothing in the documentation to suggest the Council refused to allocate the property to Ms B because she intended to use the living room as a bedroom. Rather, the documentary evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council decided not to allocate the property because it did not consider it suitable to meet Ms B’s needs and did not consider it could adapt it to make it suitable. That is in line with the Council’s allocations policy. There is nothing in the Council’s documentary records which shows use of the living room as a bedroom was a deciding reason. I recognise Ms B believes the property was acceptable without adaptation. However, the Council takes a different view. As the Council reached that decision after visiting the property I could not say it reached its decision with fault. I therefore cannot comment on the merits of its decision not to allocate the property to Ms B.
33. So, I have found fault in the Council’s delay identifying it could not adapt property A for Ms B’s needs. As I say in paragraph 30, that raised Ms B’s expectations and caused her doubt about whether the outcome would have been different. I recommended the Council apologise to Miss B for the delay between July and October 2018. I do not recommend a financial remedy. That is because I am satisfied the Council has spent a significant amount on extra works at Miss B’s current property which were not necessarily required to enable her to access the property. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. Within one month of my decision the Council should apologise to Ms B to reflect her raised expectations and uncertainty as a result of the delay deciding the Council could not adapt property A.
35. When the Council carries out property inspections where it is anticipated a property will only be suitable with adaptations it should ensure an appropriately qualified officer attends to establish whether the proposed adaptations are feasible.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Ms B an injustice. 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