Summary: Mr and Mrs C complained about the way the Council considered their request for Mrs C to be included as part of the household in the application for rehousing. They further complained about whether the Council had properly considered their overall circumstances and whether discretion should be exercised to increase their priority for rehousing. There was no fault.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs C complained about the way the Council considered their request for Mrs C to be included as part of the household in the application for rehousing. They further complained about whether the Council had properly considered their overall circumstances and whether discretion should be exercised to increase their priority for rehousing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr C and spoke to him I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr C and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr and Mrs C live with Mr C’s parents (Mr and Mrs R), and his brother in a three bedroom council flat. They have a young child. In December 2018 Mr and Mrs R applied to move to another property. This application includes Mr C and his brother but not Mrs C. In summer 2019 they asked to include Mrs C as part of the household on the transfer application.
6. The Council considered Mr R’s medical conditions and needs. It decided he did not need live in care so Mrs C could not be considered to be a required live-in carer. As that was the only basis on which she could be considered to be part of the household the application was refused. A review request was unsuccessful.
7. In 2020 the family renewed the requests. The Council’s position remained unchanged. There was further correspondence over 2021 but there were no significant events.

Analysis

8. Our role is to consider whether the Council has acted in accordance with the law and its own policies. We do not provide a review of decisions that a council has made properly.
9. The Council’s policy says that only an applicant’s own children will be considered as part of the household. There is no age limit on the age of the children that will be included. But other adult relatives and siblings will be expected to make separate applications.
10. Here both Mr C and his brother are included on Mr and Mrs R’s application. Mr C also has an application in his own name. His brother doesn’t live with his wife and children. Mr C’s application was made before he was married and before his parents’ application was made. It seems that Mr C’s application was not cancelled when his parents made the application.
11. As far as Mr and Mrs C are concerned the Council’s policy would expect them to make their own application. Mrs C could be added to Mr C’s application. But this is not what they want. Mr C says that his parents need live-in care and this is provided by his wife. He says they could not manage and could not live independently.
12. The Council has considered, in terms of their housing need, whether Mr and Mrs R need live-in care and do not consider they do. I do not consider there is any fault in how the Council has made that decision. It has considered all the information provided and taken advice from its medical advisor and from a housing occupational therapist.
13. If someone has adult social care needs then it would be for the Council to carry out an assessment of their needs. The family have not requested such an assessment but that would be the right way to decide Mr and Mrs R’s needs and how they could be met. If an assessment showed Mr and Mrs R needed live-in care then the Council would have to consider that when looking at Mr and Mrs R’s housing need.
14. Mr C argues the Council needs to consider the family situation as a whole and not to apply its policy rigidly. We do expect councils to consider whether circumstances are so exceptional that it should depart from its normal policy requirements. But that can only be in the most extreme of cases. The Council has said it has considered whether it should make an exception here but does not consider there are grounds to do so. An issue Mr C has raised is that he has experienced threats of violence related to a volunteer role he used to have. He says that at times he and his family did not feel safe in their property. He did report incidents to the police and there was an incident, I think in 2019, where his car and house keys were stolen. This meant the Council had to change the locks. The Council has said it has had no reports of violence in relation to the home. There is no fault here. The Council needing to change the locks from that one incident would not show as an event related to the home.
15. Although I there has not been fault by the Council there is an opportunity here for the Council to consider any further information Mr C wishes to submit. This could be informed by the outcome of any adult social care needs assessment. The Council has confirmed that it will consider any further information.

Back to top

Final decision

16. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman