Summary: Ms X complained that the Council made an offer of housing to her family, including her disabled son Mr P, and then suddenly withdrew the offer. She says this raised their expectations and caused distress. I have found the Council at fault for failing to conduct a care act assessment on Ms X’s mother. However, I am unable to reliably say if this failure led to an injustice for Ms X and her family. Ms X also says the Council’s communication was poor and it delayed providing housing for her family even though Mr P has a degenerative condition and the family’s housing need is urgent. I do not find the Council at fault in that regard.

The complaint

1. Ms X is represented by Mr D in this complaint. He says that:

• The Council offered Ms X and her family accommodation and then withdrew it without explanation, causing distress.
• The Council’s thereafter communication has been poor, continuing the family’s distress.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. Ms X’s mother, Mrs Z, was a party to the family’s housing application. She was, Ms X says, also expecting to move into the accommodation relevant to this complaint. The accommodation was two bungalows next door to each other both of which were designated for use by those with care and support needs and required supported living accommodation. However, after consideration, the Council said that, as Mrs Z did not have any known support needs, the accommodation was not suitable for the whole family.
3. The Council did not assess Mrs Z’s needs. It says it was not aware she had care and support needs. Mrs Z passed away in April 2021.
4. I have looked at whether it is likely that the Council’s failure to assess Mrs Z’s needs caused Ms X and her children an injustice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
7. 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

8. I spoke with Mr D.
9. I read the complaint file and reviewed any relevant policies.
10. Ms X, (through Mr D) and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

11. Below is a chronology of the relevant facts. It is not meant to record everything that happened.

Background

12. Ms X’s son Mr P is severely disabled. He has a degenerative condition and Ms X is his carer. Ms X has another son, Mr M.
13. Until April 2021, Ms X also provided support to her mother, Mrs Z.
14. Ms X had been unhappy with the accommodation she and Mr P had been living in for some time. The Council recognised it was not suitable for Mr P’s needs.
15. In September 2020 there were discussions between Ms X and the Council about rehousing. At a meeting it was noted that Ms X would be able to care for Mr P and Mrs Z if they lived closer to each other. The Council noted that Mrs Z would need to register for housing.
16. In October 2020 Council officers met the family and Mr D. Mr D says that, at this meeting, officers asked Ms X to discuss the option of Ms X and Mr P and Mrs Z and Mr M living in adjoining bungalows.
17. The minutes of the meeting were sent to all parties the next day. Within the minutes it was noted, among other things, that the relevant housing officer would also look at, “…new build options to explore the potential suitability.” It was also noted that other housing options should be explored too.
18. In a follow up meeting in November 2020, Mr D confirmed that Mrs Z had agreed to the move. Mr D said he understood from this meeting that the Council had undertaken to begin the process of allocating two suitable properties to the family. Ms X and Mr P would live in one and Mrs Z and Mr M would live in the other. Mr D says that the discussions at this meeting “strongly suggested” that an offer of the bungalows would be a formality once Mrs Z had registered for housing. The Council, however, says that no definitive offer of housing was made.
19. The note made of the meeting said: “Family have agreed today that they are happy to explore the potential to move into two two bedroomed properties in close proximity to one another.” The note also said that the housing officer was to meet with other officers to discuss the families housing needs.
20. It was again noted that the housing officer should also explore if there were any other housing options available. Mr D said there was a discussion about other options but it was brief. He accepts that the action points shared about the meeting did use the word ‘explore’. He said he did not query this because he felt that the actual discussion held had indicated so strongly that the offer would proceed, that he did not feel it was necessary.
21. At a meeting about two weeks later, the occupational therapist present said that it no longer looked as if Mrs Z and Mr M would be eligible to acquire a property on the site being looked at because of the requirement that only those tenants who need formal support would qualify.
22. The Council had not assessed Mrs Z’s needs. It says no concerns were raised in relation to Mrs Z’s care and support needs other than Ms X wishing to maintain contact to check on her. It says an assessment was not requested by the family until much later.
23. The family were told by email that the Council did not consider Mrs Z and Mr M would be eligible. Mr D said this email came as a complete surprise and that there was no explanation whatsoever of how and why this decision had been made. He considered that the blow might have been cushioned to some extent if the Council had delivered the news in person.
24. Shortly thereafter, Mrs Z passed away. Since then, the family has been in continued negotiations with the Council with an aim to find a suitable property for Ms X and Mr P and Mr M.

Analysis

25. It is clear Ms X was extremely hopeful her family would be able to move into the two bungalows close. However, on the evidence, the Council did not make a firm offer to provide this accommodation. Mr D accepts that the minutes of the relevant meetings do not refer to a firm offer but refer to the Council and the family exploring this as a possibility. The records show other options were also still on the table. Even if the family felt the offer was firm, the evidence I have seen does not record this was the case.
26. I have to consider if the Council was at fault for discounting the possibility of the move without assessing Mrs Z’s needs. While it had not received a referral, it was aware that one of the reasons Ms X wanted her mother close to her was so that she could support her. This in itself should have prompted an assessment.
27. Local authorities have a duty to assess individuals once they become aware that a person may have a need for care and support. Even though Mrs Z’s family did not make a referral, the Council was aware that Mrs Z appeared to require support. This is fault.
28. I have to consider if this caused an injustice to Ms X and her family. It is relevant to my consideration that if the family considered Mrs Z was eligible, they could have asked for an assessment. The evidence suggests they were aware this was possible as Mr M did make a referral some time later.
29. As Mrs Z died before an assessment on her care and support needs was undertaken, I cannot say if it she would have met the eligibility criteria. I therefore cannot find that the Council’s failure to assess Mrs Z caused an injustice.
30. This is especially so because the records indicate that Ms X and Mr P were still being considered for one of the bungalows.
31. I understand that the Council is still looking for a property for Ms X, Mr P and Mr M. It appears to very difficult to find a property that is suitable. I do not consider the Council has acted with fault.
32. With regard to poor communication and delay, having looked at the records, I can see that the Council tried to keep in contact with Ms X and Mr D. It was not always possible. As the relationship between the Council and Ms X had become so fragile, the lines of communication were understandably fraught. I do not consider the Council was at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have found some fault but no injustice. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman