Summary: Mrs X complains of fault with the Council’s handling of medical information she provided which led to her missing out on the opportunity to move to suitable permanent accommodation. There was fault by the Council. It agreed to remedy the injustice through a direct offer of accommodation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains of fault with the Council’s handling of medical information she provided which led to her missing out on an opportunity to move to suitable permanent accommodation.
2. Mrs X also says the Council has used the medical information to her disadvantage because it is seeking to place her in an unsuitable property.

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 examined the complaint and background information provided by Mrs X and the Council. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments on the complaint and information it provided.
6. I sent a draft decision statement to Mrs X and the Council. I considered the comments of both parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mrs X presently has medical conditions including stress incontinence and fribromylgia.
8. Mrs X approached the Council as homeless in the early 2000s. She was placed in temporary accommodation. She remained on the Council’s housing register with a banding of C. Her priority date was set in the early 2000s as required under the Council’s allocations policy. Mrs X’s housing need is for a three bedroom property.
9. Mrs X bid for a three bedroom property in the summer of 2019. The property was given to another applicant in band C with a priority date which was later than that of Mrs X.
10. Mrs X had provided the Council with medical information prior to bidding for that property. The information indicated she had fibromylgia. The Council passed the information to an occupational therapist. The therapist noted the property Mrs X bid on was unsuitable for her needs because it had stairs and, given the diagnosis of fibromylgia, her condition was likely to worsen in future.
11. Crucially, the Council did not assess whether it was possible to install a stairlift in the property at the time. Installation of a stairlift could have meant the property would be suitable for Mrs X.
12. Mrs X feels the Council did not properly consider her medical condition. She says the Council used the information to reject her bid for the property but then refused to give her additional medical priority.
13. The Council reviewed Mrs X’s banding when she complained. It decided her current accommodation did not have a major adverse effect on her medical condition and so did not attract further priority on the housing register on medical grounds.
14. However, on receipt of my enquiry letter, the Council reviewed the matter. It noted it had not made suitable enquiries into the possibility of a stairlift being installed in the property Mrs X bid for in the summer of 2019. It decided to make a direct offer of a three bedroom property to Mrs X.
15. Mrs X is concerned the Council wants to offer her a property which is only suitable for disabled person. Mrs X emphasises she can climb stairs and is not a wheelchair user. Instead, she wants any property offered to her to include two toilets to account for her stress incontinence.

Finding

16. The Council already acknowledged fault in its handling of the matter because it did not enquire into the possibility of a stairlift being installed in the property Mrs X wanted.
17. I find the direct offer of a three bedroom property is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs X because of the error. The Council should now ensure the next available suitable three bedroom property is offered to Mrs X.
18. I note Mrs X’s concern about being offered a property that she does not consider suitable for her needs presently. However, the medical information does indicate she has a condition that is likely to affect her mobility in future. While this is not certain as Mrs X says, the Council’s occupational therapist made a judgement after assessing Mrs X in her home. It is not for me to substitute my judgement for one of a council officer which is properly reached.
19. The Council cannot offer Mrs X a property which has two toilets because of her incontinence. There must first be information from medical professionals which indicates that Mrs X must have two toilets in her home and then the Council’s own medical advisor has to assess the information and advise allocation officers.
20. There is uncertainty about the outcome had the Council assessed the suitability of installing a stairlift in the property. We cannot now resolve this question as the property is now occupied by another party. The coronavirus restrictions also make it unlikely that the property can be assessed by an occupational therapist presently.
21. The uncertainty means I cannot determine the full extent of distress Mrs X faced because she remains in her present property. Having consulted the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, I recommended a payment of £500 to Mrs X to reflect the uncertainty and distress the situation has caused her. The Council accepted my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

22. There was fault by the Council which caused Mrs X an injustice. The complaint was closed because the Council agreed to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman