Summary: X complained about the way the Council has dealt their and Y’s housing application. They complains the Council has wrongly reduced their priority and has bid on unsuitable properties it knew they would not accept. The failure to properly explain the outcome of the OT assessment, and to clearly identify the types of properties and areas that would be considered suitable for their needs is fault. This fault has caused X and Y an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as X complained about the way the Council has dealt their and their relation, Y’s housing application. X complains the Council has wrongly reduced their priority and has bid on unsuitable properties it knew they would not accept.
2. X also complains about the way the Council has responded to their complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. X complains there have been issues with Y’s housing application since they first applied. However I am only looking at events since October 2022. X complained to the Ombudsman in October 2023 so I will consider events in the preceding 12 months. It was open to X or Y to complain about events prior to October 2022 much sooner.
7. I have referred to events prior to October 2022 for context only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• X 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

9. 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))
10. 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))
11. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. It uses a banding scheme to prioritise applications. Band A, Band B, and Band C are priority bands, and those without a priority are placed in Band D.
12. Band A health needs include emergencies where an applicant is in hospital, or another institution with no suitable housing to be discharged to, and as a result they could not be discharged without a high risk to their health or safety.
13. Band B health priority is awarded where an applicant has a significant health condition and their housing situation presents a considerable risk to their health or safety. Examples of this include
• where the design of the current home means the applicant cannot reach essential facilities within the property or get into or out of the property without considerable difficult or held. And a move to a different type of property would resolve or alleviate these difficulties.
• someone has been discharged into the care of their family but the accommodation is unsuitable for their needs.
14. The allocation policy states that where applicants are awarded Band A or Band B priority the Council will monitor their bidding. If applicants are not bidding consistently and realistically the Council may place bids on their behalf.
15. Applicants in Band A will receive one offer of suitable accommodation to satisfy their housing needs. If they refuse this offer they will be placed in Band B. The policy also states the Council will review the priority of applicants in Band B on at least a monthly basis. Applicants in Band B will also receive one offer of suitable accommodation to satisfy their housing needs. Once a suitable offer has been made the priority will be removed and applicants will be placed in Band D.

What happened here

16. Y applied to join the housing register several years ago. X is included on the application as they will be moving in with Y. X and Y were living with X’s sibling, Z, but the accommodation was not suitable for their needs. Z provides care and support for both X and Y and assists them with their communication with the Council. They would like to move to a property close to Z so that Z can continue to support them.
17. The Council initially placed X and Y in General Needs Band D. They applied for priority status and an officer, Officer 1 arranged for an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment. Due to COVID-19 there was a delay in OT assessments taking place. In November 2021 Z told the Council they did not want an OT assessment as they did not want adaptations to the home.
18. The Council’s records say an OT, Officer 2 arranged a remote assessment by video call, as requested by the family, in early February 2022. This did not go ahead as X and Y were not comfortable with a video assessment. Officer 2 offered to visit wearing full personal protective equipment but X and Y did not want a visit for fear of COVID-19. Officer 2 advised them they could not make any recommendations without carrying out an assessment.
19. In May 2022 the Council added a medical acknowledgement to their case as X and Y were deemed to require ground floor accommodation. The Council says this was due to X and Y’s lack of engagement in an assessment being completed. This would allow X and Y to bid on properties which had adaptations and were within the scope of what was required. X believes the medical acknowledgement should have been added earlier and does not agree there was a lack of engagement.
20. In early November 2022 the Council received referral from the hospital regarding X. Z also told the Council X was in hospital and too ill to return to their home. They told the Council X and Y needed ground floor accommodation as soon as possible. An officer, Officer 3 visited X in hospital. The Council says X wanted to be rehoused with Y rather than on their own as they would not manage in their own tenancy. It says Officer 3 told X the family would need to be fully assessed by the Health and Housing team. They also reiterated to Z that an OT would need to assess the current home.
21. Officer 2 visited Y at home to complete an assessment on 9 November 2022. I have not received a copy of the assessment record but note that following the visit Officer 2 informed Officer 3 that the current property was not suitable for adapting and that Y wanted a ground floor property with X. Officer 2 considered this would be the best solution. They did not consider a house with a stair lift would meet Y’s needs.
22. On 20 November 2022 the Council advised Y it had awarded Band A medical priority for 2-bedroom level access accommodation. It also advised that OT checks were required in relation to the suitability of any accommodation. The Council advised Y that during the priority award period they would need to bid on all suitable properties. It explained that if they did not bid on all suitable properties an officer may need to place bids for them.
23. In addition, the Council explained that if Y refused an offer of a property the Council considered suitable and that met their housing needs their priority may be cancelled. X does not recall Y receiving this letter.
24. The Council placed bids on properties on X and Y’s behalf in December 2022 and January 2023. OTs checked each of the properties and advised that they were not suitable for X and Y’s needs as there were issues with access and could not be adapted. X is unhappy that one of these properties was an upper level flat, which was contrary to Officer 2’s recommendation for level access properties.
25. Officer 3 contacted Z to discuss the types of properties that would be suitable for X and Y. Officer 3 then met with Officer 2 and their manager to discuss how to proceed. On 23 January 2023 Officer 3 contacted Z to advise they had decided the best course of action was for Officer 2 to carry out an assessment of X’s needs and the type of property they required.
26. On 6 February 2023 Officer 2 telephoned Z to arrange a visit to meet X. The Council’s records say Z told Officer 2 they did not want a visit and were unhappy this had been requested. Z felt the family knew what kind of property they needed. Officer 2 attempted to explain that not all properties could be adapted to meet their needs and as they had not X they did not have a clear picture of their needs. The records say Z maintained they did not want a further visit. Officer 2 agreed to discuss this with the housing team.
27. X says that during this call Z told Officer 2 they were confused about the suggestion a two-storey property with a stairlift and downstairs toilet may be unsuitable. During the OT assessment Y had explained their preference for a single level property and Officer 2 had advised them not to rule out two -storey properties which could be adapted. X says they were now being told something different.
28. X also says Officer 2 had said during their assessment of Y’s needs that they would speak with the OT service at the hospital about X’s needs. As Officer 2 had not done this X says they lost trust in the OT service and refused a further OT assessment.
29. Officers met to discuss how to proceed on 16 March 2023. They noted Officer 2’s initial assessment was that Y was unable to manage stairs and would not manage a stairlift and had therefore discounted houses as suitable properties. The Council did not know whether X was able to manage stairs as they had declined an OT assessment but the medical evidence it had received suggested it would be very difficult for them.
30. The Council’s records say the outcome of the meeting was that any houses would be rejected on grounds of suitability in line with the Council’s allocations policy.
31. There is no record the Council advised X and Y of this decision.
32. The following week Z and X contacted the Council seeking clarity regarding a bid Y had placed and a bid the Council had placed on their behalf. They noted Y had bid on a property which was advertised as having a stairlift and a level access shower. The property was close to Z’s home so that they could continue to provide support. As they considered the property suitable they were shocked and disappointed to find Y’s bid had been rejected. They asked the Council for an explanation.
33. Z and X were also concerned the Council had placed a bid on a property in an area where X and Y would be isolated of support. They asked the Council to remove this bid and for officers placing bids to consider X and Y’s needs.
34. As they did not receive a response, X chased the Council in late March 2023. They asserted Officer 1, Officer 2, and Officer 3 had imposed self-made rules and restrictions on their application which had prevented them being rehoused. X asked the Council to remove the bid officers had placed and to reconsider their own bid. They also asked the Council to investigate their complaint about Officer 2 and Officer 3.
35. On 31 March 2023 the Council offered Y a tenancy at the property officers had bid on. Y rejected the offer and the Council reduced Y’s priority on the housing register to Band B. X asked for this to be considered as part of their complaint and for Band A priority to be reinstated.
36. Officer 1 responded to X’s complaint on 5 April 2023. They noted the Council had awarded Band A priority when X was in hospital in order to achieve a swift move and free up a clinical bed. As an OT had not been able to carry out a full assessment the Council had agreed the offer of a house would be unsafe and that a property which is all on one level and has adapted bathing facilities would be more suitable.
37. Officer 1 said that once an offer had been made under the Critical Band A and refused, the priority was reduced to Band B. They confirmed Band A would not be reinstated.
38. X was unhappy Officer 1 had responded to their complaint as they had previously made complaints about Officer 1 and felt there was a conflict of interest. Z discussed the family’s concerns with a senior officer, Officer 4 who then wrote to them summarising the issues and action taken. Officer 4 agreed the Council had not been clear about whether a property with a stair lift would be suitable and that a full assessment had not taken place. Officer 4 noted X and Y had now decided to only bid on single level properties.
39. Officer 4 also explained the Council had awarded Band A priority to facilitate X’s discharge from hospital and said this should automatically have moved to Band B when X returned home. They confirmed Band B is still and “urgent need to move” priority and is the priority most disabled people with an urgent need to move are awarded. They confirmed they were unable to reinstate Band A priority.
40. In addition, Officer 4 remined Z that as with all priority banding if Y refuses a property which has been checked as meeting their needs by the OT they would then lose their priority.
41. X confirmed they did not intend to proceed with their complaint at that stage. But they remained unhappy the bid placed by the Council was still active and had not been removed despite their requests.
42. In May 2023 Officer 3 advised Y that their priority banding would expire on 31 May 2023. They noted Y had not been bidding on all suitable properties and was concerned Y’s selective bidding may be preventing them from getting the urgent move they required. Officer 3 advised they would now make bids on Y’s behalf. X says Y did not receive this letter.
43. The records show X and Y did not bid on any further properties. In July 2023 the Council offered Y a tenancy for a property officers had bid on. This was a two-bedroom property with a ramp to the front door and a wet room which an OT considered was suitable. It was also two miles from Z’s property. Y refused this property as they considered it was too far from their support network.
44. X also contacted Officer 4 to complain the bid had been placed and approved by an OT despite their explanations about the difficulties X and Y would experience if they were to move to a property this distance from Z. X said the Council had bid on properties in a particular part of the city every week since the end of June. They felt these were targeted bids, possibly aimed at reducing their banding as they would inevitably refuse these properties.
45. As the Council deemed the property was suitable and Y had now refused two offers of accommodation it cancelled their priority and placed them in Band D. The Council advised Y of their right to request a review of this decision. Again X says Y did not receive this letter. They learned their banding had been reduced via the property bidding page.
46. Officer 4 responded to X’s complaint in late August 2023 and summarised the six issues X had asked them to investigate:
• that Officer 1 should not have responded to their previous complaint;
• an explanation for reasons for meetings between Health & Housing officers, OT’s and the OT team manager as X questioned the need for such meetings.
• the reduction of Y’s banding from A to B was not in line with Council Policy
• officers placed bids on properties which they were aware would not be suitable for X and Y based on the location of the properties and their need for close family support.
• the OT who approved any of these properties as suitable for X and Y is in breach of their duty of care as set out by their professional bodies.
• the removal of Y’s band B priority based upon inappropriate bids placed by officers is incorrect and in breach of housing policy.
47. Officer 4 addressed each issue in turn. They said Officer 1’s response was not an official complaint response, as X’s correspondence was taken as a request for information. Officer 1 had provided the facts of the events which led to the change in priority banding. As such Officer 4 did not consider Officer 1’s involvement in the response had unfairly compromised matters to X’s disadvantage.
48. However, Officer 4 confirmed the Council would look at its processes to ensure requests for complaints are appropriately investigated.
49. In relation to the meetings between officers, Officer 4 confirmed they were initially to review their needs as although they were aware of X’s diagnosis, Officer 2 had only assessed Y. Officer 4 confirmed no additional criteria was introduced at the meeting and the outcome was to request an opportunity to assess X’s needs. The second meeting was to ensure all those involved in the case were looking for the same type of property. Officer 4 was satisfied the meetings were for justified reasons.
50. Officer 4 also noted the allocation policy says officers will monitor the bidding of applicants with priority in Band A to ensure it is consistent and realistic. If it is not officers may place bids on an applicant’s behalf. This is what happened in this case. They explained the decision regarding location is made by Health and Housing, not the OT although it is often the OT who identifies a need to be near carers.
51. Officer 4 noted the offer of a property about 18 minutes’ drive from Z was withdrawn, but the subsequent offer of a property 11 minutes from Z’s property was considered suitable. Y’s refusal of what the Council considered a suitable offer, combined with X no longer being in hospital changed their priority from critical to urgent. Officer 4 concluded the Council had correctly applied its allocation policy when reducing Y’s banding from A to B.
52. They were also satisfied the decisions to place bids on properties took into account X and Y’s needs and were appropriate. As Health and Housing officers rather than OTs made decisions on the distance from care and support Officer 4 did not consider the OTs were in breach of their duty of care.
53. In relation to the offer of a property and the change in banding, Officer 4 again referred to the allocation policy which says applicants in Band B will receive one offer of suitable accommodation, following which their priority will be removed. They were satisfied the policy had been correctly applied here.
54. X was unhappy with the Council’s response and asked for their complaint to be considered further. They did not consider Officer 4 had adequately address their concerns about Officer 1 and Officer 3’s actions in bidding for properties. They believed the officers had been unduly harsh towards them and suggested their lack of flexibility could be racially motivated. X also remained of the view Officer 1 should not have responded to their complaint, irrespective of whether it was an informal or official response.
55. In addition X did not feel their concerns about the meetings between Health & Housing officers, OT`s and the OT team manager had been adequately addressed. And they was disappointed the Council had still not sent Y a copy of the OT assessment.
56. X also questioned the inconsistencies in explanations for the reduction in their priority banding from A to B as they had been told both that the reduction was because X was no longer in hospital, and also because they had refused an offer of accommodation. X asserted officers had acted strategically to reduce their priority banding and had not followed proper process.
57. When asked about the outcomes they were seeking, X confirmed they wanted:
• An apology for the way Officer 4 had handled their complaint;
• Priority banding restored;
• Officers reprimanded and their work monitored; and
• a reassessment of the types of properties they can bid on, without a further face to face assessment;
58. The Council reviewed X’s complaint and advised that in order to award medical priority an OT assessment was required. This is to be clear on the needs of the customer and to ensure the Council can support them with an appropriate property. The Council offered to arrange for an OT to contact X to arrange an assessment.
59. In addition, the Council confirmed that having reviewed the information X had submitted and spoken to relevant officers it could not find any evidence X had been disadvantaged. It was satisfied processes were followed to support their needs using the information X had provided.
60. As X remains dissatisfied, they have asked the Ombudsman to investigate their complaint. In response to my enquiries the Council says the family had been placing bids on properties that were not deemed suitable, that is houses with stairs rather than level access properties. It says the team felt it necessary to assess both X and Y to ensure they could be matched to appropriate properties. The Council acknowledges a full OT assessment was not carried out and says this was due to the family’s wishes.
61. The records provided show Y bid on seven properties between November 2022 and January 2024. Y subsequently withdrew two bids, two were bypassed as an OT deemed they were unsuitable, and another was bypassed as Y had been offered a property. The final three were offered to applicants with higher priority than Y. In addition the Council also bid on 10 properties during this period. Of these five were deemed unsuitable by an OT, and three were offered to applicants with higher priority than Y. Y was offered the other two properties.
62. The Council says there must be a fair process when awarding properties in line with the allocation policy. It feels a significant level of understanding was delivered throughout this case but recognises it is disappointing that X and Y’s needs have not yet been achieved.

Analysis

63. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what level of priority Y should have on the housing register; that is the Council’s job. We can only consider whether the Council assessed their application correctly. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
64. The Council awarded Y Band A priority when X was in hospital and returning to Z’s property would not meet their needs. This was in line with the Council’s allocation policy and was an appropriate decision. X was discharged from hospital to a care home and then returned to Z’s property. It was open to the Council at this stage to review Y’s priority and determine, in line with its allocation policy, that they no longer met the criteria for Band A priority. The Council did not reduce Y’s priority to Band B in December 2022 and Y remained in Band A, with the greatest priority.
65. The Council was clear in it correspondence with Y regarding its expectations of those in Priority bands. Namely that they needed to bid on all suitable properties, and if they did not, an officer may need to place bids for them. And that if Y refused an offer of a property the Council considered suitable and that met their housing needs their priority may be cancelled.
66. Having been awarded Band A priority Y did not bid on any properties for two months so the Council began placing bids for them. Y then bid on houses with stairlifts. The Council had advised Y that OT checks would be needed to confirm the suitability of any properties they may be offered. X disagreed with the OTs decision that the properties Y had bid on were unsuitable. They also disagreed with the way the Council selected properties to bid on as they were too far from Z’s home to enable Z to continue to support them.
67. The OTs decisions on suitability are a matter of their professional opinion. They have visited the properties and set out why they consider a property would or would not meet X and Y’s needs. There is no evidence of fault in the way they reached these decisions.
68. I do however consider there to be failings in the Council’s initial communication regarding what would be a suitable property. The Council told Y it had awarded medical priority for a two-bedroom level access properties. But I have not received any evidence the Council shared the OT assessment with Y or expressly advised them they should not bid on houses. Or that properties with stairlifts would not be suitable. Nor is there evidence of any discussion regarding how far Z could travel to support X and Y. I consider the Council should have been clearer regarding the types of properties and areas it considered would be suitable. This would have avoided any subsequent confusion and disappointment when bids were rejected.
69. The Council’s failure to provide Y with a copy of the OTs assessment and to confirm the types of properties they should bid on is fault.
70. However there is no evidence the Council added additional criteria or restrictions to Y’s bids or that officers’ discussions and the bids they places were intended to hamper Y’s application. Officer 2 determined following Y’s assessment in November 2022 that a house with a stairlift would not meet their needs. This position did not change. The records suggest officers met to ensure there was clarity going forward regarding X and Y’s needs and the types of properties that would be suitable. The Council’s request for an OT assessment of X’s needs, as part of this process was appropriate.
71. Nor is there evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to reduce Y’s priority from Band A to Band B when they refused a property in March 2023. Or to reduce their priority to Band D when they refused a second offer of a property in July 2023. I recognise X disagrees with these decisions, but they are in line with the Council’s allocation policy.
72. The Council’s complaint policy has two approaches to dealing with complaints. The first is a problem-solving approach, sometimes referred to as ‘informal complaints. The Council aims to deal with the majority of complaints in this way. Where this is not possible or appropriate it will formally investigate the complaint. The Council’s website does not specify who will deal with the complaint under either approach.
73. X is unhappy Officer 1 responded to their initial complaint. Although Officer 1 was not the subject of this complaint, X had previously raised concerns about them. The Council says Officer 1’s letter was not an official complaint response as a formal complaint response has to be sent by a more senior officer within the Council. However, as the subject of Officer 1’s email was “complaint”, and in the absence of any other response it is understandable that X considered this to be a complaint response.
74. I consider the lack of clarity regarding the status of Officer 1’s response and the failure to adequately respond to X’s complaint are fault. However I do not consider this fault has caused X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

75. The Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Y and X for the failure to properly explain the outcome of the OT assessment, and to clearly identify the types of properties and areas that would be considered suitable for their needs.
• pay X £250 in recognition of the distress and frustration the Council’s failings have caused.
76. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

77. The Council’s the failure to properly explain the outcome of the OT assessment, and to clearly identify the types of properties and areas that would be considered suitable for their needs is fault. This fault has caused X and Y an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman