Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the failure to install a stairlift and upstairs level-access shower. There is not enough evidence of fault on points that are the Council’s responsibility. We cannot consider the housing association’s actions as landlord.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council, with Wakefield District Housing (WDH) acting on its behalf, has failed to provide a stairlift and upstairs level-access shower for his son Mr Y. Mr X says before the Council offered Mr X and Mr Y their current home, it agreed to provide those items later. Mr X says the lack of those items means Mr Y, who has a mobility disability, has difficulty getting up and down the stairs, cannot use the bath in the upstairs bathroom so has to use Mr X’s shower, with the risk of cross-contamination related to Mr X’s medical condition.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We cannot investigate the actions of housing associations, except when they are acting on the Council’s behalf to carry out a Council function.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence between Mr X, Mr Y and Wakefield District Housing. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Our decision on Mr X’s previous complaint to us in 2017 is here. Mr X says we invited him to renew the complaint to us if adaptations he expected were not provided after he moved into the new property. However, we ended our previous investigation on the basis that a property had been offered. The covering letter we sent Mr X with our previous decision said, ‘If the move does not go ahead or takes far too long, you can make a new complaint to the Ombudsman.’ We did not say particular adaptations needed to be done.
6. WDH is a housing association. We have limited powers with housing associations. We can only consider WDH’s actions when it acted on the Council’s behalf. WDH runs the Council’s housing allocations scheme for the Council. So we can consider WDH’s actions that were directly part of allocating the property to Mr X and Mr Y. However, we cannot consider WDH’s actions as landlord of Mr X and Mr Y.
7. With actions directly related to allocating the new property to Mr X and Mr Y, the evidence I have seen, including correspondence between Mr X, Mr Y and WDH from 2017 onwards, only shows WDH (on the Council’s behalf) committed to adapting the property for Mr X’s needs before the move. There was no reference to providing a stairlift or upstairs walk-in shower for Mr Y’s needs. Mr X cites a Council housing needs panel decision in 2016, which he says identified his needs but also said Mr Y needed a shower because his disability prevented him using the bath. However, I do not take that as meaning the Council meant Mr X would necessarily need his own separate shower in a different property several years later. Rather the Council could reasonably interpret it as meaning as long as the new property had a level-access shower, it would meet both occupants’ needs. Mr X also cites a letter from WDH in December 2017 saying a level-access shower had been agreed. However, from the context, that was the downstairs level-access shower/wetroom for Mr X, not a second shower upstairs.
8. Mr X first mentioned the stairlift in a letter to WDH on 4 March 2019, saying it had been agreed at the planning stage. The letter did not mention an upstairs shower. The shower was first mentioned when Mr Y wrote to WDH on 17 June 2021.
9. Mr X and Mr Y say that, in conversations with WDH at their previous home and while viewing a different property in 2017, they asked about the stairlift and upstairs shower and understood WDH had agreed on the Council’s behalf to provide those items as part of the allocation of a new property, would produce revised drawings for the new property to incorporate those points, and would install those items in the future after they moved into the new property. WDH says it has no record of such agreements or drawings.
10. Clearly there are disputed recollections of what was raised and agreed in conversations about Mr X’s needs in 2017. It is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view on those points now, given the apparent lack of supporting evidence. There is not enough evidence of fault by or on behalf of the Council in not providing the stairlift and upstairs shower for Mr Y, and further investigation is unlikely to be fruitful.
11. WDH, as landlord, has declined to provide the stairlift and upstairs shower. As I have explained, we cannot consider WDH’s actions as landlord.
12. WDH said if Mr Y believes he needs such adaptations, he should contact the Council’s adult social care section for an assessment of his needs. That option remains open to Mr Y.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on points that are the responsibility of the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman