Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed a referral to Occupational Therapy, which meant he could not bid on eligible properties. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for how it communicated with Mr X about the referral. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment for uncertainty and distress caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed referring him for an OT assessment after the Council approved his application for the housing register.
2. Mr X complains this delay meant that he did not bid on suitable properties while he was awaiting the assessment.
3. Mr X complains this meant he had to spend longer than necessary in unsuitable accommodation and missed properties he would have been eligible for.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
6. 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

Parts of the complaint I am not investigating

7. Part of Mr X’s complaint is the Council shared information about his application with his mother.
8. Complaints about information are for the Information Commissioner. Therefore, I am not considering this part of Mr X’s complaint.
9. Mr X has already made a previous complaint to the Ombudsman about the events between May and July 2021. The Ombudsman has already considered these events and therefore I will not consider them again.
10. An additional part of Mr X’s complaint is the Council has not agreed to give him a lifetime tenancy because the fault in its handling of his complaint.
11. The tenancy (if any) the Council might offer Mr X concerns the Council’s management of its social housing as a registered social housing provider. This means the restriction in paragraph 5 applies. Therefore, I will not consider this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered Mr X’s complaint and information he sent me. I also considered information from the Council.
13. I considered comments received on a draft of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

The Council’s policies and procedures

14. The Council’s policy refers to the Housing Act 1996 section 166A as amended and states the housing authority is to give reasonable preference to people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.

Choice based lettings

15. Properties are let through the Home Connections Choice Based Lettings scheme. Eligible individuals on the scheme bid on available properties, the Council offers the bidder with the highest priority the property, providing it is suitable.
16. The scheme gives points following an assessment of the applicants needs. Applicants with the same number of points will be re-housed in date order.

Medical priority

17. Where suitable, a medical advisor will provide an assessment for applicants to advise the Council if the priority group is met. As part of the assessment for medical priority consideration will be given to the suitability of the current property and any adaptions that have been carried out. If the housing needs are met or could be met by making adaptions, medical priority may not be awarded.
18. Re-housing on medical, welfare and disability grounds normally arises when:

• The housing situation seriously adversely affects health; and
• The property cannot reasonably be adapted to meet needs and thereby causes the need to move.

19. The situation usually arises when:

• There is a housing factor which directly adversely affects a medical condition.
• Adverse housing factors have a serious effect on the ability to cope on the quality of life.
• On occasions, an additional bedroom or extra space may be needed on health grounds.

20. The policy states a wide variety of circumstances can occur which cause a need to move on medical or welfare ground. Each case is considered on individual severity and merit. It gives examples of housing factors which may seriously, adversely affect medical conditions, welfare or disability. These include the following:

• Dampness, caused by irreparable structural defect causing severe chest conditions requiring hospitalisation.
• Overcrowding, which increases the risk of infection in some susceptible individuals and therefore seriously affect their health, for example individuals undergoing chemotherapy, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
• Unsuitable for mobility impairment, where individuals have problems walking and climbing stairs making it difficult to reach or move within accommodation. Various medical conditions can cause reduced mobility, but only severe cases are likely to be awarded priority for re-housing, for example lower limb amputation, registered blind.
• Effect on psychiatric conditions

Request for review

21. An applicant can ask for a review. Where it is reasonable practicable, a review will be carried out within eight weeks by a senior officer who did not make the initial decision.

What happened

22. Mr X lived with his parents in an adapted property. Mr X made an application to the Council housing register. He applied on the grounds that his parents’ property was not suitable on health grounds.
23. The Council granted Mr X access to the housing register with medical priority in July 2021.
24. Mr X says he wrote to the Council in July 2021 and advised he would need a property with adaptations. He says he never got a response, and therefore did not bid on properties which he may have been eligible for.
25. Mr X complained to the Council in April 2022 about the lack of response, and said he felt he should be awarded a lifetime tenancy because of the Councils failing.
26. The Council upheld that it could not prove it responded to Mr X’s notice of a need for adaption. It agreed to refer him for an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment for this. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint that he should be awarded a lifetime tenancy.
27. The complaints team contacted the housing team and asked that a referral be sent to the Occupational therapy assessment service the Council uses in May 2022.
28. Mr X complained to the Council again in May 2022 that it had failed to contact him and advise the next steps for his application. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint.
29. The Council received the report from the OT service in June 2022. The OT report recommended that any property Mr X was offered would likely need adaptations but that this did not decide the property Mr X should be eligible to bid for.
30. The Council received a request for a further review in August 2022. It finished the review in October 2022 where it upheld the original decision.
31. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said again said the Council should have referred to the OT service when he initially asked, and as it could not locate his notification, it should offer him a lifetime tenancy in recognition of the injustice.
32. The Councils said again upheld Mr X’s complaint that on balance, it could not show it had responded to his notification of adaptations needed, but that the OT referral would not have impacted the properties offered. It maintained that it would not give Mr X a lifetime tenancy in recognition of this, and that any tenancy offered would be in line with its policies.
33. Mr X remained unhappy with the Councils response and bought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Was their fault causing injustice

34. Mr X’s complaint centres around the Councils delay referring him for an OT assessment which he feels cost him the opportunity to bid on suitable properties.
35. Mr X’s application to the register and agreement for medical priority was agreed in July 2021. Mr X says he emailed the Council in July 2021 asking about adaptations.
36. The Council’s complaint response says it could not locate Mr X’s request as it had cleared the inbox, but that it was possible it had missed the message. It should have carried out the referral sooner, however, it would not have changed Mr X’s circumstances as the outcome was that Mr X would need adaptations once a property was allocated. The Council’s view was that as Mr X had not yet been allocated a property, he had not suffered an injustice as a result.
37. Mr X says that he did not bid for properties which he might have been entitled to as he was left uncertain about the Councils actions about the OT.
38. As part of my investigation, I asked the Council to provide details of Mr X’s position on the register and any properties that he may have missed during the delay of the OT referral.
39. The Council provided evidence that Mr X had 200 medical points. It set out that between April 2021 and May 2022, it let ten properties to people with the same amount of points. However, these were given to people who had been on the register longer than Mr X and were therefore higher on the list or they were given to people with different medical priority.
40. The Council confirmed there was one property that Mr X may have bid on, and this would have shown on his account, but that he did not bid on it. The Council gave evidence which showed that Mr X had bid on eleven properties and withdrew his application on nine of them.
41. I asked the Council to explain how it decided who gets referred for an OT assessment. The Council said the decision depends on someone’s circumstances and the facts of their case. It could be

• Based on medical information submitted during an application,
• Following the offer of temporary or permanent accommodation
• To assess whether a property is suitable for adaption
• To assess and facilitate works to help someone remain in their home.

42. In Mr X’s case, he says he originally told the Council in July 2021 that he needed adaptations. He didn’t get a response and so he refrained from bidding. He complained to the Council in April 2022 and again said he needed adaptations.
43. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint. It said that it could not locate his email in July 2021 as the inbox had been cleared, so it was possible he had not received a response to his request for adaptation assessment. However, as the actions from the assessment would only be implemented once a property was allocated, it did not consider Mr X had been disadvantaged.
44. Mr X has been caused uncertainty by the Councils lack of response when he first told them he needed adaptations. However, it is the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether fault has caused injustice. The OT report is clear in its recommendations for adaptations once Mr X has been allocated property. I am satisfied the OT referral would not have had a bearing on the properties he would have been eligible for, and that on balance, he has not missed out on properties.
45. The Council has already apologised for the uncertainty caused, however, Mr X’s has been caused distress and uncertainty for nine months as a result of the Council failing to communicate with him. I will therefore recommend a payment for distress and uncertainty in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. Within 4 weeks of the final decision the Council has agreed to

• Pay Mr X £100 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused.
• Review how it ensures that queries about adaptations are answered in a timely manner.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I have completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for not responding to Mr X about his request for adaptions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman