Summary: Mrs X complained the Council had failed to rehouse her despite assessing her need to move in 2017. We have found the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council had delayed in rehousing her family since 2017. She said because of this, she lives in unsuitable accommodation. She said her physical disability means she cannot access the upstairs toilet without support and she cannot access the kitchen safely.
2. Mrs X said she has lost her independence and her basic human rights are being infringed because she cannot access her kitchen or bathroom. Mrs X wants the Council to rehouse her in line with her assessed needs.

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. 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)
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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

7. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X.
8. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
9. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

10. Councils are under a legal duty to have a scheme for allocating accommodation. They have the right to set their own housing policies and decide all aspects of the allocations process.
11. The law says that councils must give people with a high housing need “reasonable preference” through the allocations scheme. This includes people at risk of homelessness, those living in overcrowded housing and those who need to move for medical or welfare reasons.

The Council’s policy

12. The Council prioritises housing applications using a points-based system. When considering applications based on medical need, it allocates either 25, 75 or 150 points depending the extent a person’s ill health affects their housing needs. Where there is ‘moderate relevance’ it allocates 75 points; where it considers it has ‘major relevance’ it allocates 150.
13. Depending on the number of points awarded, the application is allocated into one of four bands. Band A is the highest band through to band D the lowest.
14. The Council awards Band A to applicants with 300 points or more, or those cases “needing adapted housing due to physical disability where there is an urgent need to relocate”.
15. Band B applicants are those with a 150 -299 points, and “all other cases needing adapted housing due to physical disability”.
16. After the Council bands the application, it places the applicant into one of eight ‘access queues’ depending on the need for housing. Its policy states the physical disability queue is for people seeking specially designed or adapted property and is mainly for wheelchair users. Applicants have a right to ask the Council to review its housing decision.

Background

17. Mrs X has lived in a two-bedroomed housing association property with her husband and two children (a boy and a girl) since 2012.
18. Mrs X applied to join the Council’s rehousing register in October 2017. In the application form she explained she had limited mobility because of a condition affecting her legs. That meant she struggled to access the toilet situated in the first-floor bathroom as she could not manage the stairs independently; she also said the kitchen was too small and she could not access the room without injuring her feet.
19. An occupational therapist (OT) from the Council visited Mrs X. They noted Mrs X walked with adaptive shoes and a walking aid at home. She was observed wall walking because of poor balance. The assessment noted she had “difficulty managing the stairs at present”. The assessment said Mrs X would benefit from a single level property with no internal or external stairs. It said a stair lift was considered but because of the poor layout of the kitchen rehousing would be more beneficial. They offered a commode to help with toileting, but Ms X declined. That assessment said Ms X would benefit from a wheelchair accessible property.
20. The Council’s housing service sought the opinion of the medical adviser. They advised a score of 75 to reflect that her disability had “moderate relevance to current or future housing needs”.
21. In February 2018, the Council wrote to Mrs X. It said it assessed her as needing a three bedroomed property and had allocated her 125 points (75 points for medical need and 50 points for overcrowding). It said it put her into Band C of the general needs queue. Mrs X asked the Council to review its decision stating it had not considered her medical needs properly.
22. The Council asked its medical adviser to review their scoring advice and provided them a copy of the medical evidence Mrs X had supplied. The medical adviser completed a further assessment that stated “she does retain some independent mobility on the flat with a walking aid and is described as able to accomplish some stairs, albeit with difficulty. I think 75 points is the correct award, to reflect the adverse effect of the current housing which is less than ideal, but not wholly unmanageable for her”.
23. The Council wrote to Mrs X twice in April 2018. It said it agreed with the medical adviser’s recommendation to award 75 points because she retained some independent mobility. In the second letter it said it had failed to award 50 points for Mr X being employed. It said it had reviewed its decision and increased her allocated points to 175 and placed her in Band B. The Council told Mrs X she could complain to the Ombudsman if she was unhappy with its review decision. Mrs X did not do that.
24. Mrs X asked for a further OT assessment as there were discrepancies between the one completed in 2017 with one completed the previous year. In May 2018 an OT completed a further assessment.
25. That assessment said Mrs X could independently manage the stairs with the rails in place. However, it noted that Mrs X said it was painful to use the stairs and that it took her sometime to climb the stairs and descend them again. It said “there may be potential for a stair lift to be installed in the property”, but because of Mrs X’s children needing separate bedrooms, Mrs X had been “reluctant for funds to be spent on such an adaptation”.

Mrs X’s complaint to the Council

26. In December 2019 Mrs X complained to the Council about the delays in being rehoused despite the recommendations from the OT’s. She said the assessment completed in 2018 was incorrect and that she was not reluctant for the Council to install a stairlift. She said a stairlift would not resolve the difficulties with her house and it would not enable her to access the kitchen; nor would it resolve problems with urinal urgency.
27. In the Council’s response to the complaint, it said its recommendation for her housing needs remained the same as in its 2018 assessment. It said that an OT would visit to complete a further assessment. The Council said it had incorrectly put Mrs X on the physical disability queue when it had initially assessed her housing needs. As Mrs X was not assessed as needing fully accessible wheelchair accommodation it moved her to the general needs queue. Mrs X remained unhappy and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

The Council’s actions following her complaint

28. An OT visited Mrs X in January 2020. That assessment highlighted Mrs X’s difficulties going upstairs to use the bathroom during the day when Mrs X was on her own. It also noted her difficulties with the kitchen. The OT discussed a stairlift with Mrs X and major adaptations for the bathroom but noted Mrs X wanted to be rehoused to a more suitable property.
29. The Council completed a further OT assessment in August 2020. A home improvement surveyor also attended that assessment. The assessment notes Mrs X reported:
• The kitchen was to small resulting in her banging her feet against base units.
• She became short of breadth and unsteady on her feet on ascent and descent of the stairs;
• She struggled with bath transfers.
• The house was overcrowded as her children were sharing a bedroom.
30. Following the assessment, the OT referred Mrs X for adaptations to her home including a stairlift and a wet-room; they suggested removal of the plinths to create a gap between units and floor to prevent Mrs X banging her feet.
31. The Council contacted Mrs X further in November 2020 about the adaptations. As any adaptations to the property would be funded through a Disabled Facilities Grant, Mrs X would need to intend to remain in the property for the next five years. It is Mrs X’s choice whether to proceed with the adaptions or wait to be rehoused.

My findings

32. The Council completed an OT assessment as part of Mrs X’s rehousing assessment in 2017. That was in line with its policy and done without delay.
33. The Council considered that OT assessment when it made its first housing decision in 2018. The assessment indicated that rehousing would be beneficial; the Council with advice from its medical adviser awarded Mrs X 75 points for medical need.
34. Following Mrs X’s request, the Council reviewed that decision in April 2018. It did not increase the medical points awarded. The Council sent Mrs X a decision letter setting out how it allocated her points. The Council decided Mrs X’s priority in line with its allocation policy. It considered the medical adviser’s opinion but made its own decision on the number of points to award for medical need. The Council was not at fault.
35. The Council completed a further OT assessment in May 2018. If Mrs X were unhappy with the outcome of that assessment, we would have expected her to complain to the Council at the time. That assessment said Mrs X was reluctant for the Council to make adaptations to her home. We would not expect the Council to make adaptations, such as installing a stairlift, without Mrs X’s agreement. The Council was not at fault.
36. When dealing with Mrs X’s complaint the Council identified it had incorrectly placed Mrs X onto the disability priority queue when it initially assessed her housing application. It said it moved her application to the general needs queue. I fall short of finding that administrative error fault. However, even if I were to find fault, it did not cause Mrs X an injustice. The Council allocates housing from its waiting list based on priority and waiting time. Mrs X is currently number 108 on that list based on her initial application date. Therefore, she would not have been offered a property sooner if the Council had initially put on the correct list.
37. It is unfortunate that Mrs X has experienced delay in being rehoused, however that is through no fault of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

38. The Council was not at fault for failing to rehouse Mrs X. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman