Summary: Mr X complained, on behalf of his mother, the Council wrongly closed her application for a housing transfer. The Council offered a property and considered the reasons for refusal and used its professional judgement to decide the property was suitable. The Council has now explained why it did not use its discretion to make a further offer and why it did not treat the applicant as homeless. There is no evidence of fault in those decisions.

The complaint

1. Mr X, on behalf of his mother Mrs Y, complains the Council wrongly removed his mother from the medical transfer list; failed to use its discretion to make another direct offer and has not treated her as homeless even though she is living in unsuitable accommodation.
2. Mr X says this has impacted on his mother’s health and wellbeing.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs Y currently lives in a one bedroom fully adapted wheelchair accessible property. She is in receipt of a package of care and carers attend daily to meet her care needs. She is also supported by her family. The Council agreed to put Mrs Y on the transfer list to enable her to move to a two bedroom property so that Mr X could live with her to make it easier for him to provide care. The application was put on the medical transfer waiting list in March 2015.
7. In July 2022 the Council made a direct offer of a two bedroomed wheelchair accessible property in a new development. After Mr X and Mrs Y viewed the property, they declined the offer. Mr X says that there was a lack of natural light in the flat and it was too far from his mother’s current area. The Council says that it explained to Mr X the implications of declining the offer and gave him time to reconsider. However, Mr X still declined the offer. The Council wrote explaining that Mrs Y’s medical priority had been removed and her application closed.
8. Mr X made a stage one complaint. The Council says that during its consideration of this complaint, it noted that the decision letter it sent had not explicitly explained that Mrs Y’s application would be closed if the offer was refused. The letter only said that her medical priority would be removed. To rectify this error, the Council re-opened Mrs Y’s transfer application and the property was re-offered. Mr X again declined the offer and requested a review of the decision.
9. Mr X argued that solicitors were acting for Mrs Y and so the Council should have corresponded with them regarding the second offer of the property. Mr X says the Council made no contact with the solicitors and so was wrong to close the application.
10. In the review decision the Council considered the reasons given by Mr X for refusing the property. It took the view that it was not unsuitable due to its location. It noted there were three medical practices close to the new property where Mrs Y could register. It said that it would take Mrs Y’s other son 22 minutes to travel to the new property from his current address which it did not consider unreasonable. Regarding the lack of natural light in the property it took the view that if the blinds were open then there would be sufficient natural light. It said blinds were installed to ensure an acceptable level of privacy due to the relationship with another block of flats.
11. The review decision also noted that while Mrs Y’s solicitor had requested a copy of Mrs Y’s housing file, he had made no further contact with the Council regarding the offer or the review.
12. The Council concluded that the offer made was a suitable offer and upheld the decision to close the transfer application. Mr X subsequently contacted the Council saying they wanted to accept the property but by the time this happened the property had been offered to and accepted by another person.

Analysis

13. Mr X complains that his mother’s transfer application on medical grounds has been closed. He considers this is unfair as it means his mother remains living in unsuitable accommodation. Based on the information provided, the reason the Council agreed to the transfer was so Mr X could move in with his mother to make it easier for him to support her. So the move was to provide a two bedroom property and not because the current accommodation is unsuitable for her needs.
14. The Council made an offer of a two bedroom property in July 2022. This offer was declined by Mr X on behalf of his mother because of the lack of light and location. It is not my role to take a view on whether the property is suitable or whether I consider strong grounds have been given for declining the property. My role is to consider the administrative process followed by the Council.
15. The Council says that one direct offer of suitable accommodation will be offered and if it is refused, the case will be closed. However, the allocation policy says “in all cases when direct offers are made, applicants will receive one direct offer only subject to the Council's discretion to make a further direct offer taking into account the demand for and supply of accommodation.” So the Council has discretion to make another offer.
16. I am aware that after Mr X refused the offer in July 2022, the Council noted an error in its decision letter and so re-offered the property. I am not persuaded this is the same as using its discretion to make an offer of a different property. There was nothing to suggest the Council had used its discretion in this case and so I made enquiries. The Council has now explained that it does not believe there are grounds to exercise discretion and make another offer as it does not consider Mrs Y’s current accommodation is unsuitable for her needs. In reaching this position it sought the views of a manager in Adult Social Care who confirmed Mrs Y’s needs are fully met in her current accommodation.
17. While I can appreciate Mr X’s frustration that the application has been closed, I am satisfied the Council followed the correct procedure and that it has explained why it considers the property was suitable. It corrected the fault in the decision letter by re-offering the property and giving Mr X a further opportunity to accept it. It has also provided an explanation of why it has not exercised discretion to make a further offer which I consider is in line with its policy.
18. Mr X says that the Council should not have closed the case until Mrs Y’s solicitor had responded to the second offer. I note the Council emailed Mr X on Wednesday 12 October and asked him to reply by Friday 14 October. The Council said it just needed to be a yes or no response as it was the same property and Mr X had already given reasons for refusal. Mr X replied saying that he had forwarded the Council’s email to Mrs Y’s solicitor but had not heard from him yet. Mr X said he would update the Council as soon as he heard from the solicitor. The solicitor did not respond to the Council.
19. Mr X considers the Council is at fault because it did not contact the solicitors directly even though he indicated it could do this. There is nothing in Mr X’s email correspondence to indicate further time was required to get a response. I find no fault by the Council on this point. The Council’s request was clear and gave a firm timescale. Mr X did not request the Council to contact the solicitors in place of him and stated he had forwarded the information to the solicitor and would update the Council when he received a response. I do not consider there was anything in this correspondence which would require the Council to take further action.
20. I asked the Council to also consider whether Mrs Y should have been considered as homeless. I took this view as I believed her current accommodation was unsuitable for her needs. The information provided by the Council shows that Mrs Y’s current accommodation is suitable for her needs and therefore she could not be considered homeless. I find no fault on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault causing a significant injustice in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman