Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s housing. The law prevents us considering the decision not to provide a stairlift. There is not enough evidence that Mr X not having moved elsewhere is the result of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a flat reached only by stairs. He complains the Council has decided not to provide a stairlift to reach his flat and has not provided a suitable alternative property. Mr X says this means he has difficulty accessing his flat and using the stairs worsens his pain. He wants the Council either to install a stairlift or provide a suitable property near his relatives who help him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and relevant parts of the Council’s housing allocations policy.

Back to top

My assessment

Decision not to install a stairlift

5. The Council, in its role as social landlord of Mr X and of the building where he lives, decided it is not feasible to install a stairlift on the stairs leading to Mr X’s flat. That decision concerns the Council’s management of its social housing, so we cannot consider it, as paragraph 2 explained.

Not rehousing Mr X

6. Mr X is dissatisfied that, since deciding not to provide a stairlift, the Council has not offered him a more accessible property. After deciding not to install a stairlift, the Council gave Mr X Band 1 medical priority on its housing register. This recognises Mr X has an ugent need to move due to his housing aggravating his disability. That is the highest priority the Council’s housing allocations policy could give in the circumstances. The Council says an officer is working to identify suitable properties available on the housing register. It states Mr X has turned down properties it considered suited to his needs.
7. It is not the Council’s duty actually to provide social housing meeting Mr X’s needs and preferences within any particular timescale, or at all. That depends on which vacant properties become available and on other applicants’ priority compared with Mr X’s priority. The Council’s duty here is to give Mr X’s housing application appropriate priority and to allocate vacant properties on the housing register in line with its allocations policy. The evidence suggests the Council has done that. So the fact that Mr X has not yet moved appears to stem from the shortage of suitable properties and not directly from any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the law prevents us investigating the decision not to provide a stairlift and because there is not enough evidence that Mr X not having moved elsewhere is the result of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman