Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s allocations policy. I have discontinued my investigation. The Ombudsman considers there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s allocations policy. He thinks the Council took a blanket approach when deciding his housing application. He said the Council’s medical adviser did not meet him or contact him about his long-term health conditions.
2. Mr X accused the Council of failing in its duties under sections 6 and 7 of the Care Act 2014. He also said the Council failed in its public sector equality duties under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
3. Mr X suffered distress and his mental well-being was affected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, including his complaint correspondence with the Council.
6. The Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. I have summarised below some of the key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what happened.
8. Mr X suffered from several medical conditions, including prostate cancer, muscular dystrophy, and respiratory failure. He had limited mobility and used a wheelchair as well as a ventilator. He received NHS continuing health care. He wanted to move to be closer to his family and receive support from them.
9. Mr X wrote to the Council in May 2019 explaining his conditions and stating he wanted to move from his home in Bromley to Medway to be near his daughters.
10. The Council told Mr X its allocations policy has a residency criteria which does not allow applications from people who have not lived in Medway for two years before their application. However, as Mr X was over 55, the Council said he could be considered for sheltered housing and he was entitled to a one-bedroom home. The Council asked Mr X for evidence of his medical conditions and why he needed to be in Medway to receive care. The Council said this was so it could consider whether there were any exceptional circumstances to allow it to waive its residency criteria.
11. In June 2019, Mr X told the Council he had a live-in carer and provided a letter from his doctor. He asked for an extra bedroom.
12. The Council decided Mr X’s care needs were being met in his current home. He was not suffering any hardship by living out of the Medway area did not show exceptional circumstances needing a second bedroom. It said it would review this if Mr X provided more information about his need to move.
13. Mr X went through the appeals process, but was unsuccessful, so he complained to the Council in October 2019.
14. In its final complaint response in December 2019, the Council said Mr X received care in his current home and did not meet the criteria to move. He also did not show exceptional circumstances to waive the residency criteria. The Council confirmed its medical adviser reviewed the information Mr X provided. It said it drafted its allocations policy in line with the Housing Act 1996 and its equalities duties. The Care Act 2014 is not a consideration. The Council did not dispute Mr X’s care needs, but this did not mean he was eligible for social housing in Medway.
15. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman but died before an investigation started.

Analysis

16. Where fault is found about a Council decision under its allocations policy, we would normally recommend the Council reviews its decision or carries out a new assessment. In addition, we may ask the Council to repay any quantifiable losses or make a symbolic payment to recognise any distress caused by its fault.
17. Clearly I cannot now ask the Council to review its decision or carry out a new assessment for Mr X.
18. I was not able to discuss the complaint with Mr X, but the information he provided confirms he wanted an apology and compensation from the Council for distress. There is no evidence to suggest he suffered any quantifiable losses.
19. The Ombudsman has produced guidance on remedying complaints where injustice was caused to someone who has since died. This states “where the injustice is less tangible, for example distress, harm, risk, or another unfair impact of the fault, we will not normally seek a substantive remedy in the same way as we might for someone who is still living. We would not expect a public body to make a payment that would enrich a person’s estate.”
20. I therefore do not consider it would be suitable for me to ask the Council to remedy the distress of any fault which I may find by paying into Mr X’s estate.
21. I consider there is no worthwhile outcome I can achieve by further investigation of the complaint. This may be reviewed if Mr X’s next of kin or executors later come forward.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have discontinued my investigation. The Ombudsman considers there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman