Summary: Mrs B says the Council wrongly refused to allow her to bid on bungalows when her family needs one on medical grounds, delayed arranging occupational therapy assessment and failed to properly consider her circumstances. The Council failed to carry out some of the assessments properly and delayed completing an occupational therapy assessment in 2021. An apology and payment to Mrs B is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complained about the way the Council dealt with her housing register application. Mrs B complained the Council:
• unreasonably refused to allow her to bid on bungalows when her family needs one on medical grounds;
• delayed arranging an occupational therapy assessment in 2021; and
• failed to properly consider her circumstances.
2. Mrs B says fault by the Council has caused her and her family distress and means she has had to stay in unsuitable accommodation for longer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a Council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended and 34(3))
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 the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
7. Mrs B 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

The Council’s allocations policy

8. The Council’s allocations policy (the policy) says applicants in substantial need for rehousing due to medical/health or welfare reasons will be placed in the gold band. For applicants attracting medical priority this will be if they are chronically sick or severely disabled where their current home is substantially unsuitable for their needs. For applicants on welfare grounds gold band priority will be awarded where there is an immediate need to move for urgent social or welfare reasons.
9. The allocations policy says applicants in substantial need for rehousing due to medical/health or welfare reasons will be placed in the silver band. Medical priority will be given to people with an identified ongoing level of illness or disability. Within this category are applicants able to use the facilities within their current home, but where it is not wholly suitable for their needs due to physical or mental ill health. Their need will be assessed by a Medical Officer or Occupational Therapist.
10. The policy says there are certain circumstances where the Council will restrict access to the property type based on factors such as age, disabilities, pets, household size etc. The main restrictions are for ground floor flats, sheltered housing, bungalows or adapted properties. For these the Council will usually restrict access to people over 60 or those who have been assessed by an Occupational Therapist as requiring a certain type of adapted accommodation or facility. Where a property is age designated the Council will consider applicants over 60 first and remaining applicants in reverse age order, starting with the oldest applicant. If the property is adapted, priority will be offered to applicants with an assessed need for adaptations first. This means the Council may bypass a higher priority applicant if they do not have this need.
11. Adapted properties, with the exception of purpose build or extensively adapted properties will be advertised for applicants to bid on and priority will be given to applicants assessed as having an identified need for adapted accommodation. This will include younger people with assessed medical needs for adapted accommodation who will be eligible to bid on age restricted adapted accommodation, although any offer will be subject to a satisfactory risk assessment and Occupational Therapist assessment.
12. Eligible applicants will be assessed by an Occupational Therapist and their requirements determined by Doncaster Council’s Accessible Housing Register (AHR).

What happened

13. Mrs B has been on the Council’s housing register since 2002. Mrs B lives with her husband and daughter. Mrs B and her husband are under 60. Mrs B has pain in her hip which affects her ability to climb stairs and get into and out of the bath. Mrs B’s husband suffers from anxiety, depression and social phobia which means he struggles with going outside or sitting in the garden where he can hear people, music and noise. Mrs B’s daughter has ME.
14. Mrs B submitted medical self-assessment forms for her and her husband in May 2020 to seek additional priority on the housing register. The Council carried out a medical assessment but did not award any medical priority. Mrs B requested a review of that decision. An occupational therapist carried out an assessment in August 2020 and awarded medical priority which meant Mrs B moved into the gold band. That was due to Mrs B’s husband’s mental health and came under social and welfare reasons. From that point Mrs B could bid on two bedroom ground floor accommodation. The occupational therapist also recommended properties with a maximum of three steps and an enclosed/not overlooked garden.
15. Mrs B contacted her MP in January 2021. Mrs B’s MP contacted the Council to say Mrs B was concerned about antisocial behaviour from their neighbours and the impact on Mrs B’s husband’s mental health. The Council told Mrs B’s MP it had awarded gold band priority but due to Mrs B’s age she could not bid on all bungalows as she would require an age override based on needing adapted bathing for that to happen.
16. Mrs B contacted the Council in February 2021 to request an assessment for alternative bathing facilities as she said she was struggling to access the bath. The Council agreed to carry out an assessment. However, because it did not have an occupational therapist in post that assessment was delayed.
17. In April 2021 Mrs B reported that her pain was worsening and her husband’s mental health had deteriorated following a recent suicide attempt. Mrs B also reported her daughter was ill. The Council told Mrs B it was still waiting to recruit an occupational therapist.
18. Mrs B contacted the Council again in July 2021 as she was concerned about her husband’s mental health getting worse. Mrs B said she needed a joint assessment of her and her husband and asked the Council to apply the age override to enable her to bid on all bungalows as she would need one eventually anyway. The Council told Mrs B it could not do that until an occupational therapist had carried out an assessment.
19. The occupational therapist assessed Mrs B in August 2021. The assessment was only of Mrs B and recommended a silver medical band for Mrs B’s difficulties. That was already overridden by the gold band awarded due to Mrs B’s husband’s mental health difficulties in 2020.
20. Mrs B asked for a review of the decision. The Council completed the review in November 2021. The review took into account the difficulties experienced by Mrs B, her husband and her daughter. The Council awarded gold band and agreed for Mrs B to bid on two-bedroom bungalows with a maximum of one step and a level access shower. Since then the Council has offered Mrs B two properties through the accessible housing register. Both were two bed bungalows. Mrs B refused both properties as they are in built-up areas and overlooked by other houses, which is unsuitable for her husband’s mental health.

Analysis

21. Mrs B says the Council unreasonably refused to allow her to bid on bungalows when her family needs one on medical grounds. Mrs B says she and her daughter have mobility problems and her husband has mental health problems which means he cannot live close to other people. Mrs B says she therefore needs to live in accommodation which is not attached to other accommodation and is not close to other properties. I am only investigating the period from January 2020 onwards. That is 12 months before Mrs B contacted her MP. I am not exercising the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate any period before 2020 as I see no reason why Mrs B could not have complained to the Ombudsman earlier about decisions which were made before January 2020.
22. The evidence I have seen satisfies me occupational therapy assessments of Mrs B and her family took place in June 2020, August 2020, August 2021 and November 2021. Mrs B is concerned with the first three assessments because on each of those occasions the occupational therapist did not recommend the family be prioritised for a bungalow. I will deal with each of those assessments in turn.
23. I have some concerns with the June 2020 occupational therapy assessment. That assessment had been requested in respect of both Mrs B’s needs and her husband’s mental health needs. The information Mrs B had submitted was extensive, including medical evidence about the impact living in an overlooked property was having on her husband’s mental health. Despite that the occupational therapist only referred to Mrs B’s medical issues when recommending no additional medical priority. Failure to consider Mrs B’s husband’s mental health issues when reaching a conclusion is fault.
24. I am satisfied though this was addressed during the review process in August 2020. In the August 2020 decision the occupational therapist took into account the impact living in an overlooked property close to other people was having on Mrs B’s husband. As a result of those concerns the occupational therapist recommended Mrs B and her family be prioritised for ground floor accommodation, which included age-appropriate bungalows, with an enclosed or non-overlooked garden. I am therefore satisfied the review in August 2020 properly took into account the family’s circumstances. I am also satisfied as a result of that review Mrs B was able to bid on bungalows, albeit she could only bid on bungalows suitable for those of her age group. As I have found no fault in how the Council carried out the August 2020 assessment there are no grounds on which I could criticise it for the recommendation reached. That is the case no matter how much Mrs B disagrees with it.
25. I am satisfied another assessment took place in August 2021. Mrs B believes the Council should have taken into account her husband’s mental health issues when considering that application given he had attempted suicide earlier in the year. I note though that when requesting an assessment Mrs B only completed a form in her own name which described her difficulties accessing the bath. There was no reference in the form to Mrs B’s husband and nor did she complete an additional form for her husband as she had done the previous year. I would have thought if Mrs B had wanted the Council to reassess her housing register priority based on her husband’s worsening mental health she would have completed a form in his name.
26. I note though that during the period when Mrs B was waiting for the occupational therapy assessment she contacted the Council to advise of her view that any assessment should take into account her husband’s needs given his worsening mental health. In those circumstances I consider the Council should have broadened the assessment to include Mrs B’s husband and, if it was considered necessary, ask her to complete an additional form with his details. Given Mrs B had raised concerns about her husband’s mental health I consider failure to include him in the assessment in August 2021 fault. I note though that since the August 2021 assessment was completed the Council has carried out a further review which has addressed the whole family’s needs. As a result of that review the Council has now amended Mrs B’s priority so she can bid on bungalows and properties with level access showers. While I consider the Council should have considered Mrs B’s husband as part of the assessment in August 2021 I do not consider it likely Mrs B has suffered a significant injustice as a result of that failure given the review which took place three months later. I take that view particularly as I note Mrs B wants a bungalow in a specific type of location to protect her husband’s mental health, with the result that she has declined the two bungalows the Council has already offered to her. I therefore consider Mrs B’s injustice is limited to her frustration and the time and trouble she has had to go to.
27. Mrs B says the Council delayed arranging an occupational therapy assessment of her bathing needs. I note Mrs B requested an occupational therapy assessment in February 2021. There is no evidence that assessment took place until August 2021. That is a significant delay. I recognise the Council was experiencing difficulties at the time as it was recruiting an occupational therapist and did not have anyone else to carry out the assessment. While the availability of occupational therapists is beyond the Council’s control it is nevertheless a service failure. I cover earlier in this statement my concerns about how the Council carried out the August 2021 assessment. I consider the delay completing the occupational therapy assessment also delayed the review assessment in November 2021. That in turn delayed the Council accepting the family required a bungalow with level access shower facilities. As I said earlier though, it is unlikely Mrs B has missed out on a property as a result of any fault by the Council given she requires a bungalow in a specific type of location to protect her husband’s mental health. I therefore consider her injustice is limited to the time and trouble pursuing the complaint.
28. Mrs B says the Council failed to consider her circumstances when it decided she did not need an adapted bathroom. Mrs B is referring here to the assessment the occupational therapist completed in August 2021. Mrs B says she was struggling to get in and out of the bath and to use the bath board during that assessment and screamed in pain and yet the occupational therapist said she would not recommend a different bathroom arrangement. I have considered the notes kept by the occupational therapist from that visit. The occupational therapist recorded her observations of Mrs B. In those observations the occupational therapist recorded Mrs B experienced pain when transferring into and out of the bath but that she managed to complete the manoeuvre without help from the occupational therapist. The occupational therapist recorded that from her observation she did not consider Mrs B met the criteria for level access bathing. I recognise Mrs B strongly disagrees with that view. However, as I said in paragraph 4, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to comment on the merits of a decision reached without fault. As the occupational therapist reached that decision after observing Mrs B getting in and out of the bath there are no grounds on which I could criticise the Council. I am slightly confused though that the Council made a completely different decision about the need for alternative bathing arrangements three months later when carrying out the review. There is no clear rationale in the documentation I have seen to explain why the Council took a different view in November 2021 compared with the view taken in August 2021. As Mrs B is now being prioritised for properties with a level access shower though and as I have already made clear it is unlikely she has missed out on a suitable property as a result of any fault by the Council I do not intend to pursue that point further.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within one month of my decision the Council should apologise to Mrs B and pay her £250.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman