Summary: A woman complained about the Council’s failure to re-house her to more suitable accommodation and its failure to offer appropriate support in view of her special needs. But we do not have sufficient grounds to investigate these matters. This is partly because we have already addressed some of the complaint issues in a previous investigation. In addition there is insufficient sign of fault by the Council which has caused the woman a significant injustice to warrant our further involvement in her case.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss X, complained that the Council had failed to move her to more suitable accommodation despite knowing she was seriously affected by noise from a neighbouring property. She also complained the Council had not offered appropriate support regarding her special needs. Miss X said as a result she had suffered considerable distress and her health had been damaged.

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

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Miss X provided with her complaint, and the records from our previous complaint investigation in her case. I also gave Miss X the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view. In addition I took account of information the Council provided in response to my enquiries in Miss X’s case.

Back to top

The parts of the complaint I have considered

4. Last year we investigated a previous complaint from Miss X about how the Council had dealt with assessments of her social care needs and associated housing needs. I consider that Miss X has raised issues in her new complaint which are the same as, or closely related to, the issues covered in our previous investigation. That investigation is now closed, so we will not reconsider matters which were effectively addressed in that case.
5. In the circumstances I consider there are two remaining issues I can look at in Miss X’s case. These are her complaints that the Council:

• unreasonably offered her a property on a particular housing estate (‘the Estate’) despite being aware that she should could not live there because it was where her ex-partner was murdered; and
• failed to respond properly to her enquiries about what services for autistic adults were available in the borough and who in the Council was the named lead officer for commissioning support for adults with autism.

What happened

The accommodation offer

6. Miss X registered on the Council’s housing list as she wanted to move from her flat. This was due to noise from a neighbouring property which was badly affecting her health.
7. In June 2018 the Council nominated Miss X for a flat on the Estate. Miss X said the Council put pressure on her to attend a viewing and accept the property.
8. However Miss X refused the offer. She also complained to the Council, explaining why she could not consider a property on the Estate.
9. In response the Council said there was no reference on Miss X’s housing application file to her being unable to live on the Estate, and it invited her to provide further information in this respect. The Council noted that Miss X had also refused the flat because it was on a high floor and only had one bedroom, whereas she wanted a two-bedroom property.
10. In July 2018 Miss X’s solicitor wrote to the Council about several issues, including the recent flat offer. The solicitor said the Council knew, or should have known, about the incident involving Miss X’s ex-partner, and referred to a report made by a housing officer in 2017 which explained why it was important to avoid the Estate area when offering her accommodation.
11. But in response to my enquiries about this matter the Council said it could not trace a copy of a housing officer’s report from 2017.
12. The Council said Miss X’s housing register application was not adversely affected by her refusal of the flat. In particular, the Council said at the time in question Miss X did not wish to be considered for a one-bedroom property, and she continued to challenge its assessment that she did not need two bedrooms.
13. Miss X subsequently arranged a property exchange with another tenant and moved to another borough.

Autism services information

14. Miss X said for several years she had repeatedly asked the Council for information about any available services to assist autistic adults, but she did not receive a response.
15. In April 2019 Miss X made a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request asking the Council about what services it had in place for autistic adults and the identity of its Autism Lead officer.
16. The Council responded in October 2019 saying services and support packages for people depend on an assessment of need in each case. The Council did not provide the name of its Autism Lead which it said was under review.
17. Miss X said she pressed the Council for more information but only received a further reply in March 2020 after making a complaint to the Information Commissioner. By that time she had moved to another borough.
18. In March 2020 the Council wrote to Miss X apologising for its delay in responding to her and for failing to log a new FOIA request she made the previous October. This time the Council named the two officers who were sharing the role of Autism Lead, and provided a link to an organisation which may be able to offer more information and advice to Miss X. But it also re-iterated that the particular services it could provide or commission would depend on an individual needs assessment.

Analysis

The accommodation offer

19. I am not convinced there is sign of fault by the Council which caused Miss X an injustice to warrant an investigation of this matter.
20. In particular I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council’s Nominations Service should necessarily have been aware of Miss X’s concerns about the Estate or known that an offer of a property there would cause her distress and should, therefore, be avoided.
21. In addition, I have not seen evidence the Council put Miss X under any undue pressure to accept the offer. I note the Council’s letter about the offer refers to possible sanctions for applicants who persistently fail to attend viewings. But I consider this is appropriate advice for the Council to give, and it appears to be standard information included in its offer letters rather than personally directed at Miss X.
22. But in any case I do not see that the Council’s offer, and Miss X’s rejection of it, made any significant difference to the treatment of her housing application or her chances of receiving a further offer. In particular I understand the main reason the Council did not make any further offers to Miss X before she moved to another borough was the ongoing dispute about whether she had a need for a two-bedroom property rather than the one-bedroom the Council had assessed as being appropriate.
23. I also consider it would be very difficult to carry out a fair or meaningful investigation into these matters now given the events in question happened around four years ago.

Autism services information

24. It is clear that the Council was at fault because of delays in responding to Miss X’s requests for information about autism services. However I am not convinced Miss X was caused a significant injustice as a result to justify an investigation.
25. First, I consider that the Council’s final response to Miss X in March 2020 did not contain much new detailed information, and also referred to some information which was already available on its website. In the circumstances I do not see we could say that Miss X would necessarily have gained any significant benefit if she had received this information at an earlier date.
26. For example, in its final response the Council provided the names and contact details of its Autism Leads rather than just their job titles. But I do not see we are in a position to conclude the outcome for Miss X would have been substantively different had she contacted the Autism Leads directly.
27. Second, I consider the Council’s makes a valid point that specific details of the autism services and provision it could offer a person would depend on an assessment of that person’s individual needs. However our previous investigation looked at the social care assessments in Miss X’s case and we decided there were no grounds to challenge the merits of those assessments. As I have indicated, I see no reason for us to look again at matters already covered in our earlier investigation.
28. In the circumstances I consider the Council’s apologies for its delays in responding to Miss X’s concerns are a suitable remedy for her injustice regarding this part of her complaint, and I do not see we would be justified in pursuing any additional remedy in her case.

Back to top

Final Decision

29. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s failures to offer her suitable accommodation and appropriate help with her special needs. This is because we have already considered some of Miss X’s concerns in a previous investigation. In addition there is no sign of fault by the Council in other respects which has caused Miss X an injustice to warrant a new investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman