Summary: Miss X is not satisfied with the financial remedy the Council offered as a result of a previous complaint to the Ombudsman about her housing allocation. Miss X says she feels that the Council has not taken her complaint, or the impact of its actions, seriously. She says the Council “made up a number” when considering the injustice caused to her. The Ombudsman upholds Miss X’s complaint because the Council’s remedy is not appropriate. The Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy suggested by the Ombudsman to reflect the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss X, is not satisfied with the financial remedy the Council has offered as a result of a previous complaint to the Ombudsman about her housing allocation.
2. Miss X says she feels that the Council has not taken her complaint, or the impact of its actions, seriously. She says the Council “made up a number” when considering the injustice caused to her, and feels the Council is “fobbing [her] off”.

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 considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments before I reached a final decision.
6. I considered Miss X’s previous complaint to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. In 2016, Miss X applied for a housing transfer on the basis that her property was unsuitable due to her medical needs and physical disability.
8. At that time, an occupational therapist found Miss X had difficulty opening all five doors to get from her flat to outside the building, three of which were “the most difficult”. They found Miss X had “severe difficulty” keeping the doors open to allow her to walk through. They said when the doors closed, they tended to hit Miss X’s shoulder or arm.
9. The occupational therapist recommended the Council installed a fob-operated automatic door opener to the three most difficult doors. They said if the Council could not install this, it should consider rehousing Miss X to a more suitable property.
10. The Council placed Miss X in band four, the lowest priority band, as she did not meet the five-year residence criterion. The Council said Miss X did not have any exceptional circumstances to warrant departing from its policy and increasing her banding.
11. Miss X asked for a review of this decision, based on her medical needs.
12. The Council reviewed its decision, and considered that band four was appropriate for Miss X. It did not give reasons for this decision.
13. In July 2018, an occupational therapist assessed Miss X. They found Miss X had the same problems with the same doors. They recommended installing fob-operated automatic door openers on the same three doors.
14. Again, the occupational therapist said if the Council could not do this, it should consider rehousing Miss X to more suitable property.
15. In August 2018, the Council placed Miss X in band two, a higher priority banding. In making this decision, the Council exercised its discretion because Miss X still did not meet the five-year residence criterion. The decision was based on medical information which said Miss X’s medical condition had deteriorated.
16. Miss X appealed this decision.
17. The Council upheld its decision to place her in band two but its notification letter did not explain the reasons for this decision.
18. In December 2018, Miss X was moved to a more suitable property.
19. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman about the way the Council made its decisions in 2016 and 2018.
20. In March 2019, the Ombudsman found the Council at fault. We recommended that the Council review its 2016 decision to consider if Miss X had exceptional circumstances to warrant departing from its allocations policy and place her in band higher than four, and give reasons for this decision.
21. The Ombudsman also recommended that the Council review its 2018 decision about placing Miss X in band two and give reasons for this decision.
22. The Council agreed that if it found exceptional circumstances to warrant Miss X being in a higher band in 2016, or band one in 2018, it would consider an appropriate remedy. This remedy was to reflect that Miss X would, in all likelihood, have been offered a move to more suitable accommodation sooner.
23. On 29 May, the Council sent Miss X a letter which explained that it had reviewed its 2018 decision and stood by its decision to put her in band two. It explained the reasons for this.
24. On 30 May, the Council sent Miss X a letter. It apologised for the difficulties Miss X experienced because of the fault the Ombudsman had found. It said it had reviewed its 2016 decision. It found that, had it considered exercising discretion in 2016 as it did in 2018, “it would have been possible for [her] to move to more suitable accommodation in 2016”.
25. The Council offered Miss X £1000 to reflect the length of time she waited for the Council to exercise its discretion, and its failure to do this.
26. Miss X then complained to the Ombudsman (this complaint).

Analysis

27. The Council says it based its offers to Miss X of £1000 on the following: that £724.32 represents two months’ rent for Miss X’s property, and £1000 was an 11.5% rent rebate for the two years she remained in the property.
28. The Ombudsman has published guidance on remedies. This gives guidance on how to calculate appropriate financial remedies. The guidance says where a complainant has had to remain in unsuitable accommodation because of fault in the housing allocation process, a financial remedy is likely to be in the range of £150 to £350 per month. It says the figure should be based on the impact on the complainant and take account of factors such as the physical needs of the occupants.
29. In this case, Miss X could access the internal rooms of her home and the Council made minor adaptations to the property as recommended by occupational therapists.
30. However, both occupational therapists found Miss X’s property unsuitable for her primarily because of the doors. Both said Miss X had difficulty opening all five doors to enter and leave her property, and had problems using the stairs when the lifts did not work. They said when Miss X did use the doors, they tended to hit her in the arm or shoulder.
31. It is my view that the Council’s consideration of an appropriate financial remedy should have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies and the impact on Miss X of the unsuitability of the property. There is no evidence that these have been considered. I find the Council at fault for this. I do not agree that £1000 is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by the fault identified.
32. The injustice this fault has caused is that the Council has not properly remedied the injustice caused by its earlier fault.

Agreed action

33. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Miss X of £3750.
34. I have based this figure on the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies, referred to above.
35. I have taken the lower end of the scale (£150 per month) based on Miss X’s circumstances and the impact the unsuitable accommodation had on her. I have multiplied this by 25, which is the number of months between the Council’s decision to place Miss X in band four (July 2016) and its decision to place her in a higher band (August 2018).
36. This results in a figure of £3750.
37. The Ombudsman will need to see evidence that this has been completed.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation and I uphold Miss X’s complaint. This is because I have found evidence of fault causing Miss X injustice. The Council has agreed to amend the remedy it previously offered.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman