Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing case, the actions of an occupational therapist, and that her representative was excluded from meetings and being involved. This is because the accepted fault did not cause any significant injustice. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault, and an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her housing case and the actions of an occupational therapist. She also complains her representative was excluded from meetings and being involved in her case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X complained the Council failed to identify she needed a property that was suitable for her needs and that the Occupational Therapist had spoken to Mrs X’s representative poorly. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to include her representative in meetings.
6. In response to her complaint, the Council noted:
• The first record it had of Mrs X’s wish for a representative to be involved was October 2024. The Council acknowledged it could have done more to confirm Mrs X’s wishes. However, Mrs X had full capacity and was able to make her wishes and feelings clear during meetings and assessments.
• The OT assessment was completed in October 2024. This identified Mrs X required adaptations. However, the Council took account of Mrs X’s expressed preference to move to another property rather than for adaptations. Therefore, the Council prioritised rehousing.
7. An investigation is not justified because:
• The OT assessment had appropriately identified Mrs X required adaptations to her property. However, the Council took account of Mrs X’s preference to move and prioritised rehousing her. Therefore, we are not likely to find the Council failed to identify Mrs X needed a property suitable for her needs.
• The Council noted the first record it had of a request for a representative to be involved was October 2024. The Council has further accepted it could have done more to capture Mrs X’s wishes regarding the involvement of her representative. However, I am satisfied this will not have caused any significant injustice. This is because while I acknowledge Mrs X has a physical disability, it has been acknowledged by all parties that Mrs X had full capacity and was able to put forward her wishes and feelings during meetings and assessments. Therefore, she was not caused any detriment by her representative not being involved in her case earlier.
• An investigation is not likely to reach any further findings regarding Mrs X’s complaint the OT had spoken poorly to her representative. This is because we were not present during the meeting and it is likely there will be conflicting evidence about what happened from Mrs X, her representative, and the OT.
8. Regarding Mrs X’s housing application, the Council has accepted there was delay in processing her application between January 2024 and May 2024, and then again between July 2024 and January 2025. The Council noted the delays were due to a backlog in the service. The Council confirmed to us that it had since made service improvements, including:
• Changing how the service handles applications which meant applications are activated at the point further supporting evidence is requested.
• Allocating additional resources within the team to reduce the backlog. Council notes the backlog has reduced by 45% and the backlog is expected to be cleared by the end of September 2025.
9. We asked the Council to check whether Mrs X would have been allocated a property between January 2024 and January 2025 if not for the delays in processing her housing application. The Council confirmed that two properties Mrs X would have been eligible to bid on were allocated during this period. However, both properties went to applicants with a higher priority than Mrs X.
10. I am satisfied this meant the delay did not cause Mrs X any significant injustice as there was no missed opportunity for her to have been rehoused earlier. Therefore, an investigation is not proportionate.
11. I note Mrs X has now been rehoused into a suitable wheelchair accessible property. Mrs X has raised some concerns about this new property. However, these matters are premature to us as Mrs X has not yet completed the Council’s complaints procedure. It is open to Mrs X to complain to us once she has received the Council’s final complaint response.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the accepted fault did not cause any significant injustice. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault, and an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman