Summary: Mr D complained the Council has failed to put him in the correct banding on the housing register. We find no fault with the Council’s decision making.

The complaint

1. Mr D complained the Council has failed to put him in the correct banding on the housing register. He says he should be in the priority banding, but the Council has put him in Band two.
2. Mr D says the Council’s failings are causing him distress because he is living in a property unsuitable for his needs and he is isolated from his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered information from Mr D. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
6. Mr D 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

Housing allocations

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. The Council runs a choice based letting scheme. This means households may bid for properties they feel are suitable for their needs. The Council will offer the property to the bidder with the highest priority points first.
9. Applicants who need to move on medical or welfare grounds will be placed in Band two. Applicants who have an immediate, emergency, or critical housing need will qualify for the priority band.

Disabled Facilities Grants

10. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are for people with a qualifying disability who need certain adaptations to help them remain in their home. They are mandatory and must be awarded if the applicant meets the qualifying conditions.
11. Grants are only approved if the council accepts the work is necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person and it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the work. The assessment of need is usually completed by an occupational therapist.

What happened

12. Mr D applied to join the Council’s housing register in December 2021. He lives in a property that is owned by a housing association. Mr D said the property was unsuitable for his needs because he was struggling to use the shower.
13. The Council placed Mr D in the transfer register. This is for applicants who are existing tenants of a housing association or registered provider that do not have an urgent housing need. The Council said it would review the matter when it received more information about the unsuitability of the property.
14. An occupational therapist (OT) assessed Mr D’s housing situation. He noted Mr D recently had two falls in the shower, and the shower room was small and narrow. He said for his future housing needs a level access shower was required that could accommodate a shower chair.
15. The Council reviewed the OT’s report. It contacted Mr D and said he was in the correct banding. It said while it recognised he had difficulties in his home, and he would benefit from a level access shower, those elements alone were not deemed as a high housing need.
16. Mr D called the Council and asked it to review the matter. The Council contacted the OT to get further information.
17. The Council spoke to the OT a couple of weeks later. It said when it looks at the suitability of someone’s home, it first tries to establish whether adaptations would resolve it. The OT said the issue is there is a step in and out of the shower. He said the housing association could resolve it and he could ask for a DFG. The OT said another issue was Mr D wanted to live closer to his family. The Council said it would need substantial evidence on his support needs before it could prioritise Mr D’s application based on isolation.
18. The Council wrote to Mr D. It said the OT confirmed he would ask the housing association to adapt the property to make the shower safe. Therefore, he would remain in the transfer register.
19. Mr D contacted the Council and said he was going to get further supporting information. He also said he had spoken to the housing association, and it said as the property was new, it could not make any adaptations as it would invalidate its insurance. The Council asked Mr D to update it when he had further information. It said it would review the matter if necessary.
20. Mr D emailed the Council a few weeks later and asked it to review its previous decision as a stage two complaint.
21. The Council contacted the OT to get further information. The OT said he made a DFG application for alterations to Mr D’s bathroom. He said there was no suggestion the housing association was refusing the DFG.
22. The Council emailed Mr D and updated him on its conversation with the OT. It said the adaptations to his property would improve his situation and he did not meet the criteria for any further preference.
23. Mr D emailed the Council’s housing adaptation team and said he no longer wanted it to proceed with the DFG. He said it would not meet his long-term needs.
24. The Council emailed Mr D and said it wanted to understand his concerns with his property further. Mr D responded and provided further information about him being isolated in the area and wanting to be closer to his support network.
25. The Council reviewed the matter and said it would move Mr D from the transfer register to Band two. It said this was based on isolation rather than medical need. It asked for an up to date rent statement. Mr D provided the information, and the Council then updated his priority banding.

Back to top

Analysis

26. The crux of Mr D’s complaint is that he believes he qualifies for the priority band on the Council’s housing register. He says the property he is living in is unsuitable for his needs.
27. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question the merits of the decision.
28. In Mr D’s case, the Council considered the information from the OT. When Mr D said he was unhappy with its initial decision, it liaised with the OT to further understand the issues with the property. It was satisfied that because the property could be adapted to meet Mr D’s needs, it was not appropriate to move him to the priority band. That was a decision it was entitled to take, and I do not find fault.
29. The Council gathered further information from Mr D when he declined the adaptations to his property. He further explained his issues with the location. The Council decided it had enough information to place him in Band two based on isolation. This was in line with its allocations policy, and so I do not find fault.
30. Mr D says the Council should have moved him to the priority band when it received the OT’s report because the property could not be adapted immediately. Mr D told the Council the housing association would not adapt the property because of insurance issues. The Council told him to keep it updated, and if necessary, it would review the matter again. Mr D did not provide the Council with anymore updates, and the OT said he was not aware the housing association had refused the DFG. Therefore, I do not accept Mr D’s assertion the Council should have moved him to the priority band when it received the OT’s report.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman