Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide the remedy recommended by the Ombudsman in resolution of a previous complaint. The complaint was closed because the remedy was provided by the Council and the Ombudsman did not find fault with its handling of the matter.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant here as Mrs X. Mrs X says the Council did not provide the remedy recommended by the Ombudsman in resolution of a previous complaint she made.

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’. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 read the complaint and details of the Ombudsman’s previous decision. I discussed matters with Mrs X by telephone. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments on the complaint and the information it provided. I considered information provided by Mrs X. I sent a draft decision statement to Mrs X and the Council. I considered Mrs X’s comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of previous complaint

5. Mrs X previously complained about the Council’s handling of medical information she provided which led to her missing out on the opportunity to move to suitable permanent accommodation. The information was on Mrs X’s medical condition. Mrs X bid for a property and was successful. However, the Council considered the property was unsuitable for Mrs X because of her medical condition. But the Council should have assessed the possibility of installing a stairlift in the property before it decided not to offer the property to Mrs X.
6. The Ombudsman recommended the Council make Mrs X a direct offer of the next available suitable three bedroom property.

Present complaint

7. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman that the Council had not provided the remedy recommended by the Ombudsman because the Council bid on a property for her nine months later rather than made her a direct offer of a property.
8. The Council says it made a direct offer of a three bedroom property to Mrs X. It provided a copy of the offer letter. It explained that the property was reflected as a ‘staff’ bid on its system and this explains why Mrs X received information on the system that the Council had bid for the property on her behalf.
9. The property offered to Mrs X was a three bedroom house with a wet room and separate WC on the first floor; a stairlift; and front and back gardens. Mrs X refused the offer.
10. Mrs X says she did not refuse the offer but instead explained her medical need for a bath.
11. The Council says there was a delay before it offered a property to Mrs X because Mrs X was in discussions with various members of its staff including its senior management about her mobility need. At the time of the previous complaint, Mrs X disputed the Council’s finding that she had a mobility need because of her medical condition. The Council’s view was that her condition required properties adapted for disabled living or capable of being adapted. Mrs X said that she did not need adapted properties and the Council was discriminating against her because of her particular disability
12. This ‘dispute’ continued on to the time the direct offer was made to Mrs X.
13. In the time since the previous Ombudsman’s decision, Mrs X told the Council her household’s medical needs have changed. This led to new occupational therapy assessments. Mrs X says her household now needs four bedrooms because of one of her children’s medical condition.
14. The Council also considered information from medical professionals dealing with Mrs X. Housing officers consulted the Council’s medical advisor on the medical conditions of Mrs X and her household. The medical advisor told the Council that Mrs X’s child would not require a separate room and so additional medical priority would not apply to the household
15. The Council then made a new offer of a three bedroom property to Mrs X. Mrs X considers the offer was unsuitable. However, Mrs X says the offer was withdrawn by the Council because it was too small.

Finding

16. I find the Council did provide the remedy recommended by the Ombudsman. It made a direct offer of a suitable three bedroom property to Mrs X. I note Mrs X considers that property was unsuitable because it had a wet room and stairlift installed. But it is not for the Ombudsman to determine the suitability of a property; that is a matter for the Council. The Ombudsman will examine whether the Council took account of all relevant matters in reaching its decision on suitability. In this case, the question of whether an adapted property was suitable was raised by Mrs X during the previous complaint. The Ombudsman’s decision statement stated:

“I note Mrs X’s concern about being offered a property that she does not consider suitable for her needs presently. However, the medical information does indicate she has a condition that is likely to affect her mobility in future. While this is not certain as Mrs X says, the Council’s occupational therapist made a judgement after assessing Mrs X in her home. It is not for me to substitute my judgement for one of a council officer which is properly reached”.

17. I note Mrs X continued questioning the suitability of an adapted property and the priority given to her on the basis of a mobility need after the Ombudsman’s decision. However, I am satisfied the Council’s decision to offer her the adapted property was appropriate given the information it had on her medical condition.
18. I note Mrs X’s reference to a need for a bath based on the advice of an occupational therapist. But the Council was not under a duty to follow that advice. It commissioned an assessment by its own occupational therapist. The assessment did not share Mrs X’s therapist’s view that only a property with a bath was suitable for Mrs X.
19. There was around nine months between the Ombudsman’s previous decision and the time the Council offered a property to Mrs X in fulfilment of the remedy. There clearly was a delay in implementing the remedy. But, on the whole, I do not find the time taken amounts to fault. This was because the Council was attempting to resolve the issue of suitability in that time given Mrs X continued insistence that she had been given the wrong priority in terms of mobility need.
20. As to the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s more recent information on her household’s medical conditions and housing need, I do not find fault by the Council. The Council dealt with the matter properly by consulting medical professionals who worked with Mrs X and her child as well as its own medical advisor. It then decided on the priority to be given to Mrs X’s household before making her another offer of a suitable three bedroom property.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I closed this complaint because I have not found fault by the Council in the matters raised here by Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman