Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay installing adaptations for his disabled children, failure to support him with his housing register application and poor complaint handling. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice. The action the Council has already taken together with its agreement to make an apology and report on its service improvements, are a suitable way of remedying this injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
1. delayed installing hoists needed to move two of their children, who have disabilities, to and from their wheelchairs. The Council agreed to this in early 2023 but did not complete the installation of working hoists until March 2024. The Council’s offer of financial redress is not an adequate remedy for the impact of the delay on his family;
2. failed to support him with his housing register application in early 2023, following the disability re-housing report advising his family needed a larger wheelchair accessible property. His application was significantly delayed because of this failure; and
3. delayed responding to his complaints.
2. Mr X says the Council should remedy its failures, which also caused him and his family upset, uncertainty, time and trouble, by paying appropriate financial redress for impact of the delay installing the hoists and backdating his housing application to March 2023.

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.
4. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and his solicitor and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X, his solicitor and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Adaptions for children with a disability

8. The Council can provide help for families of children with a disability by fitting adaptations to their home. This can include a hoist to help with moving and lifting.
9. Its Occupational Therapy Team will carry out an assessment when an adaptation is requested. They will make recommendations based on the family’s need.

The Council’s Housing Register

10. Applications to join the Council’s housing register can be made online via the housing application form on its website. This includes applications by existing Council tenants who need to move on medical or welfare grounds (including grounds relating to a disability).
11. The registration date is the date the Council receives a fully completed application, except where there is a change to the applicant’s band. This date affects priority within each band.
12. The Council says it aims to complete the assessment of the applicant’s priority band in the register within 28 days from the date the application is submitted online.
13. If an applicant’s priority band changes because of a change in their circumstances, the priority date will be the date they move into the new band.

What happened

14. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Background

15. Mr X and his wife are existing council tenants and live with their five children in a four-bedroom property. Four of the children have disabilities and use a wheelchair inside and outside the home.

Request for hoist installation

16. In early 2023, the Occupational Therapist (OT) assessing the children’s needs had discussions with Mr X and the Council’s Housing Adaption Team about installing hoists at Mr X’s home to facilitate moving two of the children to and from their wheelchairs.
17. After the completion of feasibility reports and agreement about where the hoists would be installed Mr X completed the required consent forms for the hoists on 27 April 2023.
18. Mr X did not hear anything further about the installation of the hoists. In September 2023 his solicitors asked the Council for an update and chased this with the Council in November 2023.
19. The hoists were installed in January 2024, but without the slings needed to use them.
20. The slings were fitted in March 2024. Mr X and his family were then able to use the hoists to move the children.

Complaint about the delay installing the hoists

21. Mr X complained about the delay installing the hoists. The Council said, in its complaint response, there had been delays outside of its control because of the need to move heating pipes to install the hoists.
22. It also set out the following timeline of its actions:

• July 2023: contractor instructed to install the hoists
• August 2023: it identified the need to relocate pipes for the hoist installation. It made a referral to its building surveyor for an inspection and oversight of the work required
• October 2023: inspection by its building surveyor. They advised the work was not straightforward. Following a joint inspection with the contractor a plan to re-route the pipes at the same time as the installation was agreed.
• January 2024: the hoists were installed. The delay was due to the contractors’ availability to attend to complete the work.

23. The Council later accepted there had been an unreasonable delay installing the hoists and offered a payment as redress for the impact of the delay on the family.

Mr X’s housing register application

24. In March 2023, the Council’s Children’s Services OT completed a disability re-housing assessment. This advised it was essential to rehouse the family in a larger wheelchair accessible property with more bedrooms and circulation space.
25. The OT sent the re-housing assessment report to the Council’s Housing Team and asked about the family’s higher priority options.
26. On 16 March 2023, the OT also sent an email about the report to Mr X. The OT told Mr X in this email:

“please can you also register and apply online with the housing options team. They will match the OT report to the account to determine eligibility and banding for re-housing. Any queries or difficulties with this process please do get in touch”

27. I have not seen any information showing Mr X registered a housing application or contacted the Council or OT with any questions about this in response to the email.

Mr X’s solicitors contact about the housing application

28. In September 2023 Mr X’s solicitors asked the OT whether the rehousing report had been used to place Mr X on the housing register and if so in which band, and how he could bid for properties. The OT referred the queries to the Housing Team.
29. The solicitors then contacted the Housing Team directly and chased it in November 2023 but did not receive a response.
30. In March 2024, the solicitors complained to the Council about its failure to advise about, and deal with, Mr X’s housing application.
31. On 21 March 2024 the Council confirmed Mr X did not have an active housing application. It provided details of how to submit this.
32. In September 2024, Mr X submitted his housing application, with the solicitors’ help.

Current position with Mr X’s housing application

33. The Council has confirmed the application is registered with a date of January 2024 and placed in the highest priority band.
34. The Council said, in September 2025, there was a lack of suitable four-bedroom properties meeting the family’s needs. There had only been two suitable properties available to let within the last two years.

Complaint handling

35. In March 2024, Mr X’s solicitors complained to the Council about its delay installing the hoist and failure to deal with Mr X’s housing application.
36. The Council responded to the complaint about the housing register application in March 2024, and the hoist installation in July 2024. It offered redress for the delay installing the hoist.
37. In August 2024, Mr X’s solicitors told the Council its offer of redress was not adequate, it should have supported Mr X with the housing register application, and this should be backdated to March 2023. They asked the Council to escalate Mr X’s complaint to stage two of its complaints process.
38. The Council did not respond. Mr X’s solicitors contacted us about his complaint in October 2024. We told them we could not investigate the complaint until the Council had completed the final stage of its complaints process.

September 2025: the Council’s final complaint response

39. The Council said in its final response it:
1. accepted support with Mr X’s housing register application could have been offered sooner. It would reflect on this as part of wider learning. It also told us it had no record Mr X struggled to use its services. If it had, it would have offered assistance immediately;
2. had increased its offer of redress for the delay installing usable hoists to £250 a month for the 11 months from April 2023 to March 2024 - a total of £2,750;
3. accepted there had been delays with its complaint handling and response to the request for a stage 2 review. It offered redress of £250 for the time and trouble this caused; and
4. had made the following service improvements to its adaptations service and complaint handling:

• it was strengthening its complaint escalation processes, with updated guidance to ensure escalation requests were not missed or delayed;
• frontline staff were receiving further training in triaging and identifying vulnerable or high-impact cases where early intervention was critical; and
• it was reviewing communication protocols across departments (social services, adaptations, and housing) to improve co-ordination in complex family cases.

My decision – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

The Council’s offer of redress for the delay installing the hoists

40. The Council has accepted there was an unreasonable delay in installing the hoists and made an offer of redress as a remedy for the impact of this failure.
41. I have considered whether this offer is in line with our expectations and approach in our guidance on remedies
42. We say in this guidance an acknowledgement of a fault in the form of a payment is often a modest amount whose value is intended to be largely symbolic, rather than purely financial. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation as a court might do.
43. Where someone has been deprived of adaptations which would have increased their independence and improved their daily life, we will usually recommend a remedy payment in the range of £150 to £350 a month. The figure should be based on the impact on the complainant or other persons affected and any carers.
44. Although the Council referred to a delay of 11 months, in my view, based on the information seen, not all of this was avoidable or unreasonable delay by the Council.
45. This is because it would inevitably have taken some time to make the arrangements needed for the hoist installation after the consent forms were completed at the end of April 2023. This included the inspections by the building surveyor and contractors, the ordering of equipment and confirmation of dates both contractors were available to attend the carry out the work.
46. However, there were unexplained delays from May to July, August to October 2023, and the delay from January to March 2024 until the slings were fitted. I have assessed the avoidable delay as about eight months. This avoidable delay was fault.
47. Mr X’s solicitors have told us, without a working hoist, Mr X and his wife had to manually lift the two children to and from their wheelchairs every day without assistance, causing them significant pain and actual injury, and risk of injury to the children. The lack of updates caused them distress and uncertainty.
48. I have taken account of this and consider a remedy payment towards the upper end of the range would be appropriate for impact over a period of eight months of avoidable delay. On this basis, in my view the Council’s offer of redress of £2,750 is in line with our expectations. I understand the Council has already made this payment to Mr X. I do not propose asking it to make any additional payment.

Housing register application

49. The OT told Mr X in March 2023 he needed to make an online housing application. I have not seen anything indicating Mr X asked the OT for help, as he was invited to do, or that he had any difficulty accessing the Council’s services.
50. The Council’s failure to reply to the solicitors’ enquiries about the housing register application in September and November 2023 was fault. But I note it confirmed in March 2024 Mr X did not have an active housing register application. But his application was not then submitted until September 2024.
51. I consider the Council’s action to backdate Mr X’s application to January 2024 is a suitable remedy for its failure to reply promptly to his solicitors’ queries about the housing application. It should apologise for this, but I don’t propose asking it to take any further action in this respect.

Complaint handling

52. The Council has accepted, and I agree there were delays completing its complaints process.
53. I consider its offer of redress of £250 for the upset, time and trouble this caused meets our expectations and approach in our guidance on remedies. I understand the Council has made this payment to Mr X.

Back to top

Action

54. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X for the avoidable delay installing the hoists, failure to respond promptly to his solicitors’ enquiries about his housing application and poor complaint handling and the impact of these failures. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
55. And within three months from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to report to us on the completion of the following service improvements it said it was making to its adaptations service and complaint handling:
1. strengthening its complaint escalation processes, with updated guidance to ensure escalation requests were not missed or delayed;
2. further training for front line staff in triaging and identifying vulnerable or high-impact cases where early intervention was critical; and
3. the review of communication protocols across departments (social services, adaptations, and housing) to improve co-ordination in complex family cases.
56. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

57. I find fault causing injustice. The above action, together with that already taken and the redress made by the Council, is a suitable way to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman