Summary: the complainant, Mrs X complained the Council had failed to rehouse her family to meet its increased need for an adapted home putting her and her daughter at significantly higher risk of harm. The Council said after refusing the application for adaptations to the family home it encouraged the family to apply for rehousing. The family did not formally apply until January 2020 when the Council gave the application maximum priority leading to two offers of homes. We found the Council acted without fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council failed to address her housing needs without delay. This Mrs X says resulted in her family living in an unsuitable and unadaptable home for over three years. Mrs X says this caused avoidable stress affecting her health. Mrs X wants the Council to review its decision not to adapt her current home or help her find a more suitable adapted or adaptable home without delay.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If 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)
4. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. In considering this complaint I have:
• Contacted Mrs X and read the information she has provided with her complaint;
• Put enquiries to the Council and studied its response;
• Researched the relevant law, guidance, and policy;
• Shared with Mrs X and the Council a draft decision and reflected on their comments before reaching this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
7. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people,
• people in insanitary, overcrowded, or unsatisfactory housing,
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds,
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
8. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
9. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

What happened

10. Mrs X lives with her daughter and husband. Mrs X’s daughter, Y, has medical needs that result in Mrs X carrying Y up and down stairs and undertaking personal care for her. Mrs X applied to the Council for a disabled facility grant to carry out adaptations at her home to enable her to care for Y more easily. The Council refused the grant in 2016. In the occupational therapist’s view, the family need an extension to provide a room for Y or a through floor lift. The Council says the best way to meet family’s needs is by moving them to an adapted or adaptable property.
11. In December 2017, a Tenancy Support Officer visited the family and assessed their housing needs. This followed discussions between Mrs X and Council officers about moving to another property. Mrs X had concerns about moving. The Council says its Tenancy Support Officer explained the Council may not be able to meet all Mrs X’s expectations. The Council says it encouraged Mrs X to apply for housing but noted she told the Council she did not want to move from her present home.
12. The County Council’s Occupational Therapist and the Council’s housing officer visited Mrs X in December 2018. The officers say they discussed with Mrs X her housing choices. The housing officer explained given Mrs X’s preferred choices the Council was unlikely to meet her expectations. The Council says Mrs X then said she would investigate alternatives and apply to other local authorities because she wished to leave the area.
13. In November 2019 following Mrs X suffering a stroke the Council’s Tenancy Support Team again contacted Mrs X and arranged a new Occupational Therapist assessment.
14. The only choice the Council says it can offer is adapting the property to allow a through floor lift which Mrs X does not want. Mrs X says this is also not supported by her Occupational Therapist. Where in the Council’s opinion it cannot offer a cost-effective adaptation the Council’s policy is to recommend the family apply for a move to a more suitable home. The Council says that since 2017 its Tenancy Support Officers with help from the Occupational Therapist and family social worker have encouraged Mrs X to apply for a move.
15. Mrs X applied for housing in January 2020. The Council awarded Mrs X’s application Band 1 (the highest band) due to Y’s needs. The Council assessed her housing needs as needing a two bedroom home adapted to mobility 1 standard. In February 2020, the Council increased this to a two or three-bedroom home to maximise Mrs X’s opportunities of securing a home more quickly.
16. In April 2020 the County Council’s Occupational Therapist wrote to the Council and expressed concern that since offering Mrs X a ‘managed move’ in 2016, Mrs X continued to live in her current home. The Occupational Therapist asked the Council to reconsider adapting Mrs X’s home because of the “…significant increase in need…”. The Occupational Therapist explained that with Y having grown and Mrs X’s own health declining, both now faced greater risks when Mrs X carried Y up and down stairs.
17. In May 2020, the Council wrote to Mrs X explaining its adaptations panel had considered her renewed application for adaptations costing above £30,000. The panel decided against the adaptations.
18. The Council’s Homefinder and Tenancy Support Officers say they have guided Mrs X on how and what to apply for since her application in January 2020. Since then, Mrs X has received an offer of a home she bid for, and a direct let but she declined both because she believes them unsuitable. The Council says it continues to look for a suitable home.
19. In September 2020 with concerns rising about Mrs X continuing in her present home the Council suggested a multi - agency team meeting. This aimed to look at all alternatives and services the County Council as the social services authority and the Council may offer to Mrs X. However, children’s social services and occupational therapy services both declined to meet saying the Council already had their views on what Mrs X and Y needed. As housing authority in their view, the Council needed to resolve the housing issue.
20. The Council says it reviewed progress in January and February 2021 and recognised the family’s urgent need for a move. Therefore, the Council says with the reduced number of properties available it decided it should consider making Mrs X a direct let offer. An offer it could not make until after she had formally applied for housing.
21. In February 2021, the Council agreed it would pay Mrs X’s removal costs for a mutual exchange having already agreed to pay her removal costs if she successfully bid on a property or accepted a direct let.
22. In response to my enquiries the Council says it involved Mrs X’s Occupational Therapist in identifying a suitable property. The latest property identified by the Council as a possible let it says the Occupational Therapist visited. She said the property may be suitable with some extra adaptations. Mrs X refused the property because it did not have a toilet upstairs. I have seen the Occupational Therapist’s report on the offer. This supports the offer but says adaptations are needed now and possibly in the future. The Council accepted the reasons for the refusal and withdrew the offer without any penalty to the family in receiving further offers of housing. The Council says it is considering an application for a stair lift at Mrs X’s current home as a possible short-term solution.

Analysis – has there been fault leading to injustice?

23. My role is to decide if the Council considered all relevant information and services when deciding what housing solution, it could offer Mrs X and her family. If I find fault in the way the Council considered its powers, I must decide what impact that had on the family and what the Council should do to put that right.
24. We cannot investigate the Council’s management of Mrs X’s tenancy only the way in which it has responded to her housing need through its allocations’ procedure. All other issues should be referred to the Housing Ombudsman.
25. The Council recognises the family need a home properly adapted to meet its needs. The current family home does not provide such accommodation.
26. The need for the move has increased between 2017 and 2020. The Council’s social workers and housing officers have often recommended Mrs X formally apply for housing. She did so in January 2020 and the Council gave her the highest priority rating. It acted quickly in identifying a property that may be suitable, but Mrs X found it was not. The Council offered a direct let of a property which meant Mrs X did not have to bid for it or compete with other applicants. This property Mrs X also felt she could not accept. The Council accepted her reasons for refusal and withdrew the offer. I find the Council has acted without fault since Mrs X applied for a move in January 2020.
27. Without that application and a signal Mrs X would willingly move from her home the Council could offer little support. Several times between 2017 and 2020 the Council encouraged Mrs X to apply to the Council for housing. The reference to a ‘managed move’ may have confused Mrs X. This may have suggested the Council would organise this without her having to make a formal housing application and bid for properties herself. The Council addressed that misunderstanding by explaining what she needed to do which resulted in the application in January 2020. I cannot find fault with the Council for the time it took for Mrs X to apply formally for housing even though I understand her reasons for that delay.
28. Mrs X clearly needed a move and finds it difficult to accept the Council acted without fault because her family have needed adaptations or a move since 2017. However, without a formal housing application the Council could not have moved her more quickly. Had it done so it may have acted contrary to its housing allocations policy. The Council has offered homes it believed would better meet the family’s needs but on review by the Occupational Therapist and Mrs X these have not proved suitable and so the search continues.

Back to top

Final decision

29. In completing my investigation, I find the Council acted without fault in managing Mrs X’s housing application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman