Summary: Mrs X complains the Council have not adequately considered the medical evidence she provided in assessing her need for an extra bedroom for a carer. The Council suspended her Housing Needs Register Application and took over 11 months to respond to her stage two complaint. We do not find fault with the way the Council has made its housing decisions, but find fault with the Council for the delay in response. This caused Mrs X distress, frustration and added time and trouble pursuing the response and the Council has provided a remedy for this.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council have not responded adequately to her complaint about suspending her Housing Needs Register Application. She says that she has provided enough documentation to evidence her need for a carer and therefore an extra bedroom.
2. The Council took over 11 months to respond to her stage two complaint and Mrs X says the Council had been biased and unprofessional towards her.
3. Mrs X would like to go from a Band C to a Band A and be moved from her three-bedroom into a four-bedroom property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 an organisation’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)
5. 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

6. As part of the investigation, I considered:

• Information provided by Mrs X and the Council;
• Information from the Council’s website;
• Relevant legislation and Guidance.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Guidance

7. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
8. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
   

9. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
10. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
11. The Ombudsman recognises the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

What Happened

12. Mrs X lives with her husband and two children in a three-bedroom Council house. The Council gave Mrs X the three-bedroom property by mistake, rather than a two-bedroom property which its Housing Policy said she should have. As the Council made the error the agreement was honoured. Even though Mrs X has two children, they would be expected to share a bedroom until the eldest is 10 years old.
13. Mrs X cannot use the stairs. She has a wheelchair and uses a walking stick. At the time of this complaint she was also pregnant.
14. Mrs X had sought adaptations to her property as she has medical and mobility needs. In February 2020 the Council told Mrs X her house cannot be adapted to her needs.
15. Mrs X is sleeping in the downstairs living room on a mattress on the floor. The bathroom and bedrooms are upstairs. Mrs X cannot get to them on her own and is having to use a commode in her living room.
16. Mrs X’s husband has spent a substantial amount of money on a summer house and a dropped kerb to help Mrs X access the house and to have somewhere for carers to stay.
17. In 2020 Mrs X was using the stairs when she had an epileptic fit. She fell down the stairs and broke her ankle.
18. In April 2020 Mrs X made a Housing Needs Register Application to the Council seeking another bedroom space to allow for a carer to stay.
19. The Council suspended the Application as Mrs X was in a three-bedroom property, when the Housing Policy states she requires two bedrooms.
20. Mrs X complained the Council’s approach was biased and unprofessional. She disagreed with suspending her application and said she had provided enough medical evidence.
21. In the stage one response, sent in May 2020, the Council said the application was suspended until receipt of further evidence to support an extra bedroom for a carer. The Council could only provide another bedroom for use by a carer in “exceptional and evidenced circumstances”.
22. The Council said it needed evidence Ms X needs care 24 hours a day including overnight care, and to show the carer is receiving carers allowance. It said there was no evidence of biased or unprofessional handling of Mrs X’s application. The Council lifted the suspension of Mrs X’s application so should could bid for two bedroom properties.
23. Mrs X argues she cannot apply for carers allowance until she has an extra bedroom, as there is nowhere for a carer to stay.
24. Mrs X raised a stage two complaint in May 2020. She disagreed with the decision to downsize to a two-bedroom property and disagreed with the Council putting her in Band C.
25. The Council’s stage two response dated 31 March 2021 reiterated the Housing and Allocation Policy says she is entitled to a two-bedroom property. As the property she is in no longer meets her needs, she would be offered a two-bedroom property.
26. The Occupational Therapy (OT) report said Mrs X has a “significant need” to move to a more suitable home. The Council say this is a medium medical need. The report says Mrs X would “prefer” a three or four-bedroom property to accommodate carers, but this was not based on a proven requirement.
27. The Council’s response said it understands that Mrs X’s housing does not meet her mobility needs. This is not in question.
28. The Council said there was no evidence of bias in the handling of Mrs X’s case. However it does “… recognise she has additional needs, and so would like to revisit the possibility of providing adaptations to her current property, further professional guidance to understand carer requirements, and a clearer position on the level of need to move to a different home”. The Council asked Mrs X to self-refer to the OT Team.

Analysis

29. In the stage one complaint response the Council lifted the suspension of Mrs X’s application, so she could continue to bid on suitable two-bedroom properties. As Mrs X would not have bid for two-bedroom properties the suspension had no practical effect on her.
30. The Council’s policy allocates one bedroom for two children who are both under 10 years old regardless of sex. Mrs X’s circumstances mean that she is entitled to a two-bedroom property based on the age of her children and number of people in the household. On the evidence provided the Council have acted in accordance with the policy so I cannot find fault with the Council’s decision.
31. The Council has also told Mrs X what evidence she needs to provide, to be considered for an extra bedroom for a carer. Mrs X has not provided what is required so I do not find fault with the Council.
32. The Council has acted appropriately by offering Mrs X further assessment and OT input.
33. There was a long delay with the stage two response. Mrs X made the stage two complaint in May 2020 and the Council did not respond until March 2021.
34. The Council did not apologise for the delay or provide any explanation as to why the response took so long. I find fault with the delay in response, causing frustration to Mrs X and time and trouble in chasing this up.
35. The Council policy shows the criteria for the different banding. Most applications are placed in Band D. In Bands B and C, additional preference is given to certain applicants with particularly pressing needs to make sure they have priority for a home at an early date.
36. Mrs X is in Band C as the Council, based on the OT report, have said Mrs X has medium medical need. Band A is for people with a very urgent need for housing.
37. I appreciate that Mrs X believes her situation to be urgent, having to sleep on the floor and use a commode in the living room, and suffering injuries while using the stairs. However, the Council are acting in accordance with the policy so I cannot find fault. I would suggest Mrs X attend the further assessment offered by the Council, so the Council can consider if adaptations can be made to her current home.
38. I have not seen any evidence the Council were biased or unprofessional in the complaint responses. The Council can only follow the policies in place. Mrs X needs to further evidence her need for a carer as requested.

Back to top

Recommended action

39. Within one month of the final decision, the Council to write a letter to Mrs X apologising for the delay in response to her stage two complaint, and pay her £100 in recognition of the time and trouble she had in pursuing the response.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I find fault with the Council for the delay in the stage two complaint response, causing distress, frustration and added time and trouble to Mrs X, and have provided a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman