Summary: Ms D complains the Council delayed assessing her housing need and providing suitable housing. I have found substantial delays by the Council resulting in Ms D not being provided a reasonable level of assistance for a total of 20 months. During that time she has had to occupy an unsuitable property, is effectively housebound because of stairs to access the property and cannot use the bath. The Council has agreed to pay redress and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council delayed assessing her housing need and assisting her to move. She is currently in a property that is unsuitable for her needs and cannot use her bath or access the stairs to the property without assistance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have exercised discretion to consider what happened from October 2022 through to 3 April 2025 when the case was referred to our Assessment Team. This is because Ms D and the Representative (Ms E) had been directed initially to the Housing Ombudsman and came to us after that service’s investigation had ended.
6. Ms D has experienced issues with disrepair at her home, and she has correctly pursued those matters with the Housing Ombudsman. My investigation is solely looking at how the Council dealt with her concerns about the unsuitability of the property and her requests to be moved.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms D, Ms E and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

2022

9. Ms D is a Council tenant. On 31 January 2022, 5 February and 30 July she submitted online housing register applications and received an application reference. Ms D says she never heard anything further about the applications from the Council. The Council has shown me, in response to my draft decision on the case, a copy of a letter sent on 29 April to Ms D. The Council says this is in response to the 5 February application and explains Ms D was not eligible to join the housing register because she was adequately housed.

2023

10. On 17 January 2023 Ms E contacted Ms D’s MP about issues with Ms D’s property. The MP then contacted the Council and on 25 January a Housing Liaison Officer (Housing Officer) told Ms E he would visit the property and carry out a vulnerability check on Ms D. The visit took place at the end of the month (there is no note of the visit) and on 1 February Ms E told the Housing Officer that Ms D did not want to move into supported housing, but she did need to be moved because the state of the property was impacting on her health. On 6 February the Housing Officer told Ms E that Ms D could seek a transfer on medical grounds and supplied a link to the Housing Registration Team. Also on that day the Housing Officer sent a referral form to the Adult Social Care First Response Team about Ms D. On 17 February Ms E asked the Council to get a Housing Manager to visit the property and assess the living conditions.
11. On 16 May Ms E complained to the Council about issues with the property including that Ms D could not manage the stairs and was often stuck in the property. She also set out that Ms D could not safely use her bath. She had emailed the Council about this in April and not had a response.
12. On 2 August another Representative of Ms D contacted the Council. She wanted the Council to progress a housing transfer for Ms D who could not use her bath or safely access the stairs to her flat. The next day a Housing Officer replied that Ms D could seek a transfer on medical grounds and gave the link to the Registration Team. On 14 August the Housing Officer emailed the First Response Team about the February referral. They asked for comments including about issues with bath and stair access. On 5 October Ms E chased up the Housing Officer about the First Response Team. She said Ms D could not leave her home because of the stairs. On 12 October the Housing Officer told Ms E that Ms D should make an online housing register application if her home was unsuitable due to medical needs. On 19 October the Council sent its final stage reply to Ms E’s complaint about the failure to progress an OT assessment. It accepted it had failed to action the February 2023 referral until October. It apologised and offered £150 redress.
13. On 23 October Ms E complained to the Council. She said Ms D could not manage the stairs to the flat and was often confined indoors. She also could not manage her bath. Ms E asked why the OT assessment was delayed. On 7 November Ms D submitted another housing register application. She also asked the Housing Officer what had happened to the three applications made in 2022. The Housing Officer then asked the Registration Team about the 2022 applications; I have not seen a response on that matter in 2023.
14. In November the OT visited Ms D and Ms E and carried out an assessment. She emailed Ms E on 15 November that it was a priority for Ms D to be rehoused and that adaptations to the property were not being recommended. On 23 November the OT issued a report after visiting Ms D. She said Ms D could not use her bath and struggled with stairs. The home was “not suitable” for Ms D’s needs. Without support Ms D was left “housebound”. The OT did not advise on adaptations due to the poor condition of the property. The report was sent to the Council on 29 November. The OT told the Council that Ms E said she had made numerous housing applications on behalf of Ms D in 2022 but had not received a reply to access online bidding for social housing.
15. On 22 December the Council sent Ms E a complaint response. It apologised for the delay replying. It also apologised for the delay carrying out the OT assessment. It stated Adult Social Care had received a referral on 9 October. The Housing Registration Team had checked but had no record of housing applications being made. A Housing Registration Officer would call Ms D to carry out a housing assessment by telephone. It would also feedback to the Housing Officer about poor communications. Ms E responded the same day. She said the referral to Adult Social Care was made in February not October. Ms D had been offered £150 for the delay by that Team but had not received the payment. She listed the housing applications with registration numbers made in 2022. She also asked if the Housing Officer could be changed as they failed to respond to emails. Ms E has confirmed to me that she considered this to be a formal request for the Council to escalate the complaint. An Officer forwarded Ms E’s email to various Officers stating, ‘please prioritise and resolve’ and to treat as a ‘service request’.

2024

16. On 3 January 2024 the Registration Officer spoke to Ms D and Ms E. Ms D did not want to move to supported housing and wanted a like-for-like transfer. The Officer sent Ms E a health and assessment form to complete for the Council to assess whether to provide a transfer on medical grounds. On 9 January Ms E told the Registration Officer that Ms D did not want to apply to move on medical grounds, she wanted rehoused because of the defects in the property. On 16 January the Registration Officer gave Ms E the name and email for the Housing Officer and Manager dealing with the case. They could consider if Ms D was eligible for a management transfer. Ms E said she would contact those Officers and sent them an email the next day explaining Ms D had been consistent in asking for a like-for-like housing transfer. On the same day Ms E also emailed the Council asking why Ms D had not been given a housing band or assigned a Housing Officer. She reiterated the OT report had recommended a housing transfer. She chased this up a month later as the Council had not replied.
17. On 5 March an Officer dealing with the 2023 ‘service request’ asked Officers for updates including what happened to the 2022 housing register applications. That Team replied the next day and said it was ‘unable to access the system where the reference numbers are generated from so cannot provide an update’. The Council says an Officer visited Ms D at the end of April to discuss the option of sheltered housing. Ms E subsequently confirmed to the Council that Ms D did not want sheltered housing. There is no note of the visit.
18. In May the Council said it would consider a second stage complaint to look at the OT visit and options on housing for Ms D. Ms E also contacted the Council and reiterated that Ms D did not want to apply to move on medical grounds. On 23 May the Housing Officer told Ms E that Ms D should consider sheltered accommodation or a health assessment. Ms D replied on 24 May that she understood the Council had a Panel that could decide on housing transfers and asked about this. She also repeated her query about what had happened to the 2022 housing register applications.
19. In June the Council advised Ms D to consider various housing options and listed different ways to get accommodation including the private sector. Ms E tells me she contacted the Council asking for clarification about what private sector housing and assistance was being referred to. The Council has told me the Housing Officer who spoke to Ms E ‘was of the view’ that Ms D would move to a private rental property and that is why no action was taken at that stage to progress a direct let. There is no record of this assessment, or any contact made to Ms D or Ms E to confirm this understanding.
20. On 11 July the Council issued its second stage complaint response. It said Ms D had refused supported accommodation. The Housing Options Team would explore alternative housing options and a transfer. On 1 August Ms E complained to the Council because Housing Officers were failing to reply to her messages about Ms D needing a housing transfer. She sent a further email on 22 August asking for a response to her complaint. On 23 September the Housing Officer and their Manager met Ms D and Ms E at the property (I have no note of the meeting). Ms D stated she was a prisoner in her own home. The Council agreed to consider a direct offer of housing.
21. The Decision Panel met on 17 October to discuss Ms D’s case. It approved a direct offer of a ground floor property and to look at the ‘Good Neighbour Scheme’. The Council says Ms D was awarded Band A priority with an effective date of 1 October 2024. The Council says it sent Ms D a letter on 24 October about the Decision Panel. I have not seen a copy and Ms E says no letter was received only an email. The Council’s email to Ms E was brief and stated the Lettings Team would contact Ms D once a suitable property was available. On 25 October Ms E replied asking why Ms D had still not been given the required registration information to bid on advertised properties.

2025

22. In March 2025 a Council Officer asked colleagues to ‘create DP case approved 10/24’. This was a request to set up the direct offer on Ms D’s housing case. On 21 March the Council offered Ms D a ground floor property. On 1 April Ms D declined the offer because there were some exterior stairs at the property, and she did not feel it was a like- for- like offer.

What should have happened

23. Where a Council tenant reports their home is medically unsuitable the Council can ask an OT to visit and carry out an assessment. The OT will produce a report and advise whether the tenant can remain in the property with adaptations or if they need to be rehoused. If the tenant requires rehousing a Housing Officer should discuss housing options with the tenant.
24. Usually a Council tenant seeking a housing transfer will need to apply to join the Housing Register by completing an online application. Once that is submitted, they will receive an application reference. The Council should then assess the application to check the tenant is eligible. The Council will assess the applicant’s housing need and award them a housing band and decide if they have priority for rehousing. It can also assess if an applicant has a medical need to move home. An application for medical priority is submitted by the applicant and considered by the Council. It will assess if the applicant’s health is affected by their housing conditions and the ‘expected benefits of providing suitable alternative housing’. Evidence from medical professionals/ an OT report will be considered. The Council can award different bands depending on the assessed level of medical need. The higher the band the more likely the applicant will be to successfully bid for advertised accommodation.
25. For older applicants the Council can consider supported housing to enable independent living. This includes community Good Neighbour Schemes for applicants requiring low level support. That scheme provides for a tenant to live independently and attend activities at nearby sheltered housing schemes. To be eligible, a housing register applicant would have an ‘unmet housing need’ including living in ‘wholly unsuitable’ accommodation because of their health and mobility. They would usually be assessed by a Supported Housing Assessment Officer to join the Supported Housing Register and awarded priority banding. Supported housing is allocated rather than being advertised and bid for. It is awarded to applicants with the highest priority banding and the date their application was received.
26. In some cases the Council can consider if a housing applicant requires a ‘direct let’. This can mean an existing Council tenant does not have to apply to join the housing register or bid for advertised properties. It can also be considered for any applicant placed in band A, where the Council considers a direct let offers a better prospect of securing a move than may be achieved by bidding for a home. The Council’s Decision Panel considers an applicant’s circumstances to decide if a direct let is appropriate. If the Decision Panel agree to the request the Lettings Team will look for available social housing that meets the ‘assessed requirements’ of the applicant (for example a ground floor level access property). Once a property is identified it will notify the applicant and invite them to view the property. If the applicant refuses the offer of a direct let property, the Council will consider the reasons for refusal. If the Council decides it was reasonable to refuse the offer it will usually only make one further direct let offer of suitable accommodation. If the Council decides it was unreasonable for the applicant to refuse the offer it can choose to make no further offers of a direct let.

Was there fault by the Council

27. The Council failed to progress the referral made in February 2023 requiring an OT assessment. No useful action was taken despite Ms E chasing up the Council until her second stage complaint was considered. This failure to take action meant the OT assessment was delayed by eight months. Had the matter been handled correctly I consider it reasonable for an OT assessment to have been completed by April 2023.
28. The Council then delayed taking forward the OT recommendations which were clearly for a housing transfer. Ms E repeatedly told the Council that Ms D did not want to live in supported housing (from at least February 2023 onwards) and simply wanted to move to a one bedroom ground floor property. Despite this, the Council wasted valuable time discussing supported housing with Ms D during 2024.
29. It took until 23 September 2024 for the Council to listen to Ms D and Ms E and agree to consider making a direct offer. The direct offer was agreed in mid-October. There is substantial delay. The Council could and should have taken account of Ms D’s requests and considered seeking a direct let much sooner. The Council says part of the delay was because the Housing Officer thought Ms D was going to relinquish her long standing Council tenancy and move to a private rental. At a minimum the Housing Officer should have promptly clarified his understanding of the matter with Ms D/ Ms E and then progressed the request for a move. I consider it reasonable to expect the Council to have made a referral to the Decision Panel about a direct let within three months of the OT report being received. The three month period gives a reasonable time for the Council to consider if alternative housing options (such as older person accommodation) was a possibility. That means, had the extensive delays not occurred, Ms D could have been approved for a direct let by July 2023. Instead there was a delay of 15 months.
30. To compound the errors and injustice to Ms D the Council then failed to set up the direct let process until March 2025. I asked the Council specifically about why this delay happened and it failed to provide an explanation. That was a further delay of five months meaning in total the delay to usefully start action to get Ms D rehoused was 20 months.
31. The Council also failed to deal with Ms E’s 22 December 2023 request for a stage two complaint. Her email on that date is clearly disputing the stage one response. However the Council says it treat this as a ‘service request’ which I consider to be fault. It failed to issue a complaint response until July 2024, which is a delay of six months.
32. The Council, in internal emails, says it cannot access the system where information on the 2022 housing register applications is generated. It subsequently produced a copy of the April 2022 letter to Ms D which it has not previously shown to Ms E despite her requests about the applications. The Council repeatedly failed to respond to Ms E’s requests for information on this point. This is a further fault by the Council.

Did the fault cause an injustice

33. The delays, lack of communication and overall poor case handling has resulted in a serious injustice to Ms D. Because of the failings by the Council Ms D has remained in an unsuitable property where she is effectively housebound without assistance to use the stairs. She also cannot use her bath. Ms D and Ms E have also been caused avoidable time and trouble having to regularly pursue the Council for action over a three year period.

Back to top

Action

34. The Council has confirmed it will offer Ms D the next available suitable property. Unfortunately it has no control over when a suitable property will become available. To redress the significant injustice caused to Ms D the Council has agreed to my recommendations and will:
• pay Ms D £2,000 for the delay of 20 months to usefully progress the case and start seeking a direct let property. This amount reflects the fact that Ms D is an older person who had to remain in an unsuitable property where she is effectively housebound and cannot use her bath.
• Allocate a named Senior Officer to monitor the handling of this case and to provide fortnightly updates to Ms D and Ms E about the search for a suitable property via a direct let. This is an important element of the remedy because Ms E has repeatedly reported a failure by Officers to progress matters or keep Ms D informed.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find fault causing injustice. I have completed the investigation because the Council agrees to take action to remedy the injustice to Ms D.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman