Summary: The Council was at fault for moving Mr X to a property which was unsuitable. This caused Mr X significant injustice as the doorways in the property are too narrow for his wheelchair. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains he was advised to sign up to a tenancy prior to an occupation therapist assessing what adaptations were needed. He was also not provided with sufficient information or guidance to explain how and when to access occupational therapist support when applying for a property.
2. This resulted in Mr X moving to an unsuitable property which could not be adapted.

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 investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
5. 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

6. As part of this investigation I considered the complaint made by Mr X and the response from the Council. I considered the information provided by Mr X. I discussed the complaint with Mr X’s representative over the telephone. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information received in response. I sent a draft of this decision to the Council and Mr X and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

7. 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))
8. 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))

9. The Council does not have any of its own housing stock. Those who register for social housing with the Council must register with the Home Choice Plus Partnership. Individuals registered on the scheme can bid for properties provided by housing associations.

What happened

10. In February 2019 Mr X applied to the Council for housing as his current property was not suitable. He is a wheelchair user and the property he was living in had stairs. The Council does not manage its own housing stock and has signed up to the Home Choice Plus Partnership. This is a partnership scheme which several Council’s have signed up to and where housing associations provide social housing.
11. In March 2019 Mr X completed a health and disability assessment. He mentioned he suffered with cerebral palsy, depression and dyspraxia. Mr X also said in the assessment he needs wider doorways so he can get around his property with his wheelchair.
12. In April 2019 the Council wrote to Mr X to say it had accepted him onto the Home Choice Plus Partnership scheme. The Council gave him a gold plus banding for the Stratford-on-Avon area and silver plus banding for all other areas on the scheme.
13. In May 2019 Mr X placed a bid on a property provided by Orbit Housing Association. After being accepted, he went to view it. At the viewing Mr X said staff told him an occupational therapist could not assess the property until he had signed the tenancy agreement. Mr X signed the tenancy agreement after viewing the property. He moved into the property in late May 2019.
14. On 3 June an occupational therapist visited Mr X to assess his property for adaptations. The occupational therapist said Mr X’s property could not be adapted. Mr X telephoned the Council to tell it the property he has moved into cannot be adapted for his needs. He asked to go back onto the Home Choice Plus Partnership scheme.
15. On 6 June 2019 the occupational therapist wrote to the Council to say Mr X cannot use the property with his wheelchair. The occupational therapist confirmed the property could not be adapted.
16. On 13 June 2019 the Council reinstated Mr X onto the Home Choice Plus Partnership scheme. He received gold plus banding for Stratford-on-Avon area and silver plus banding for other areas.
17. In July 2019 Mr X contacted the Council and asked it to increase his banding for all areas given his circumstances. He said he is unable to access all the property and is living in one room as he cannot get his wheelchair through the doorways. Mr X told the Council the only way he can move rooms is by crawling on his hands and knees.
18. Mr X contacted the Council in August and September 2019 chasing up a response to his request for increased banding on the Home Choice Plus Partnership scheme.
19. The Council responded on 4 October 2019. The Council said he was in the highest banding for his current area, but it could not increase his banding for other areas as he did not have a local connection with them. The Council said it considered whether his situation was exceptional and decided it was not based on other applicants on the Home Choice Plus Partnership scheme. The Council confirmed there are no specifically adapted properties on the Home Choice Plus Partnership scheme and Mr X would need to bid for properties and then an occupational therapist would need to assess whether the property could be adapted before he moved in.
20. Mr X contacted the Council in May 2020 to ask for further information about disability adapted properties in the area. He said he telephoned the Council’s housing options team who told him the Council could not carry out structural adaptations on properties he could bid for. The Council responded to say there are no specifically adapted properties in the Home Choice Plus Partnership areas. Any property Mr X bids on would need an occupational therapist to assess any necessary adaptations.

Mr X’s complaint

21. Mr X sought the assistance of an advocate who complained on his behalf in June 2020. Mr X complained the Council advised him he had to sign the tenancy before having an occupational therapist assessment of the property. He also complained the Council turned down his request to raise his banding to gold plus for all areas.
22. The Council provided its stage one response on 20 July 2020. The Council said it was the housing association who must have told him to sign the tenancy before completing an occupational therapist assessment. The Council said its process is to complete an occupational therapist assessment before tenancy sign up. The Council said it did not award gold plus banding across all areas to Mr X as there are properties within the Stratford-on-Avon area.
23. On 6 August 2020 Mr X’s representative asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two. The Council provided its stage two response on 25 August 2020. The Council told Mr X he should take his complaint up with the housing association as it handled the tenancy sign up. It also told Mr X he is in the highest band available.

Council’s response to my enquiries

24. In response to my enquiries on this complaint the Council reviewed the case and said both it and the housing association felt there was a missed opportunity to identify the need for an occupational therapist assessment as part of this allocation.
25. The Council confirmed the housing association has put in place a list of measures to prevent this from happening again. The Council has asked the housing association how it could assist Mr X with his situation.

Analysis

26. The Council is responsible for allocations. While its partner housing associations allocate properties through the Home Choice Plus Partnership scheme, Mr X joined the scheme by applying to the Council.
27. In this case Mr X viewed a property he bid on through the scheme and the partner housing association did not carry out an occupational therapy assessment of the property before requiring Mr X to sign the tenancy. This was fault. This was despite the fact Mr X’s application contained details of his disabilities and his health and disability assessment said he needed wider doorways so he can get around his property using a wheelchair.
28. As a result Mr X moved into a property which was unsuitable for him. After moving in an occupational therapist decided his property could not be adapted. This has caused Mr X injustice. Mr X has lived at this property for 24 months and continues to live there. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says we will usually recommend the Council pays between £150 and £350 for every month a person is in unsuitable accommodation.
29. In considering a suitable payment amount I have considered that Mr X cannot move around the property using his wheelchair and must crawl on his hands and knees to move to a different room. Mr X also reports he cannot get his electric mobile scooter out of the property without assistance as it needs to be turned upside down to fit through the front door. Mr X is unable to wash himself independently as the bathroom units are too high for him to reach. Mr X also cannot exit his property via the backdoor as there are steps and he requires a ramp. This impacts his ability to use his garden.
30. When Mr X reported the problems he was having in his property to the Council, the Council placed him back onto the Home Choice Plus Partnership scheme but decided against using its discretion to give him gold plus banding for all areas. After Mr X complained to the Council it told him to approach the housing association as it dealt with the tenancy sign up. This was fault. The Council should have investigated this issue with the housing association at this stage as the housing association was carrying out this function on behalf of the Council. Had the Council investigated what happened, as it did after our enquiries, it would have established much sooner that an occupational therapy assessment should have been completed prior to Mr X signing the tenancy.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. As the Council has delegated its responsibility for allocating housing to the housing association, it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the housing association providing them. So, although some of the fault identified was with the actions of the housing association, we have made recommendations to the Council.
32. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
• Apologise to Mr X for the faults identified.
• Pay Mr X £7,200 to recognise the avoidable distress caused to him from living in unsuitable housing for the last 24 months. This is calculated at £300 per month.
• Continue to pay Mr X £300 per month from July 2021 until he is made an offer of suitable accommodation he can move into. This does not include an offer of accommodation which can be adapted in the future. Any such offer would only become suitable once adaptations are completed.
• Exercise discretion to increase Mr X’s banding to the highest level for all areas on the scheme to maximise his chances of moving.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation and found there was fault by the Council which caused Mr X injustice. The Council has agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman