Summary: Ms B complained about the way the Council considered her housing situation and requests for increased priority on the housing register. She considered the Council had not properly considered all the family circumstances and as a result they had been living in an unsuitable property. There was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant as Ms B. She complained about the way the Council considered her housing situation and requests for increased priority on the housing register. She considered the Council had not properly considered all the family circumstances and as a result they had been living in an unsuitable property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Ms B and spoke to her I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Ms B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Ms B lives in a four-bedroom property. She has four children who all have additional needs. One of her children, Mr X, has his own tenancy of a flat nearby. Ms B considers that Mr X is not able to live independently because of his needs as he is unsafe. She therefore wanted Mr X to return to living with her. At some point over the last two years one of her other children also had their own tenancy of another property but then returned to live with Ms B.
6. A key issue here is Mr X’s living situation. He has his own tenancy and therefore the Council would not include him as part of Ms B’s household. Ms B considers that was wrong because it was not safe for Mr X to live independently. Adult social care provision is made by a different local authority, Council Z. It is that authority which assessed whether Mr X needed adult social care support. The Council asked Council Z about its involvement with Mr X. Ms B has made a complaint about Council Z which we considered separately to this complaint.
7. Also relevant to Ms B’s complaint was that she sustained an injury in 2020. That left her needing multiple surgeries and with ongoing mobility problems and pain.
8. Ms B has made an application to the Court of Protection so that she can obtain Deputyship which would mean she could make decisions on behalf of Mr X.

Analysis

9. Ms B considered she should have had higher priority for housing and be able to move to a five bed house so Mr X can return to living with her so she can ensure he is safe and provide the support he needs.
10. It is not for this Council to make a decision on Mr X’s capacity to decide where he lives. Council Z has provided information to this Council about its views on Mr X’s capacity and living situation. This Council has to rely on that. It has considered the information Ms B submitted but none of that outweighs the information from Council Z. If Ms B is awarded deputyship by the court then that will need to be considered by both authorities. But, for the moment, there is no faut in the Council not accepting Mr X as part of Ms B’s household.
11. Ms B said the injuries she sustained have left her with enduring pain and mobility problems. This is being worsened by having to walk to Mr X’s property to provide support and she is sleeping on the sofa because there is not a spare bedroom because all her children need their own room. They live in a four bedroom property so if Mr X is at his property then there would still be a bedroom each. However, as I understand it, Mr X regularly stays with Ms B. But this point relates to Mr X’s housing situation and not Ms B’s medical needs. Ms B is not suggesting that she needs a bungalow or that otherwise the property is inherently unsuitable for her. There is no fault in the Council’s assessment of Ms B’s medical needs in terms of her priority for housing.
12. It maybe that Ms B has adult social care needs and that her current house needs adaptations, or she needs other support. But that is something that would need to be considered by Council Z and her landlord.

Back to top

Final decision

13. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman