Summary: Miss D complains she has been placed in the wrong housing band and welfare need category. She wants the Council to house her in a bungalow. There is some fault by the Council because its decision letter to Miss D was inadequate, however it has assessed her case in line with procedures. The Council has already made service improvements including an improved template decision letter. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss D.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council has failed to rehouse her and not taken sufficient account of her medical needs and the impact they have on the type of accommodation she requires. Miss D wants the Council to place her in a bungalow.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have exercised discretion to consider events from August 2023 so that we cover the key Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment. I look at events up to January 2025 when the Council issued its final stage complaint response and had additional contact with Miss D about whether she wanted to pursue a homelessness application.
5. Miss D’s complaint to us was about the handling of her request for rehousing which I have considered. If Miss D is dissatisfied with other actions by the Council, such as the investigation of anti-social behaviour, she would need to make a new complaint about this to the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. On 21 August 2023 the OT issued a report to the Council following a visit to Miss D’s home. They supported her request for rehousing and that Miss D’s current home was unsuitable for her medical needs. The OT set out Miss D’s situation and the impact of a neighbour’s behaviour on her mental health. They said Miss D should be classed as having a high risk to her mental health and Miss D had told them about feeling suicidal at times. Miss D would benefit from a property without neighbours above or below her.
9. On 5 November Miss D completed a welfare self-assessment form and submitted it to the Council. She detailed the impact on her mental health caused by issues with a neighbour. She requested a move to a bungalow so she would not be at risk of being surrounded by potentially noisy neighbours. On 11 December two Housing Officers considered the evidence provided and used the ’welfare matrix’ to separately assess the case. Both Officers concluded Miss D should be placed in the high risk mental health category for welfare need. On 12 December the Council notified Miss D of its decision. The letter failed to explain what evidence had been considered or how the decision was reached. It did advise Miss D of her right to request a review.
10. In August 2024 the OT contacted Miss D as part of a routine therapy review and discuss the progress of her housing request. Following this the OT amended the 2023 report by changing that Miss D would benefit from living without neighbours above or below her to Miss D would benefit from being in a bungalow. The date on the document was not changed and still stated it was written on 21 August 2023. Also in August Miss D obtained a letter from her doctor confirming the impact on her mental health as a result of issues with a neighbour. The Council says it received a copy of that letter in November. Adult Social Care emailed a copy of the revised OT report to the Council on 25 September stating, ‘please see attached’. The Council says an Officer viewed the document and it appeared to be a duplicate of the 2023 OT report with the same date. No further action was taken with the document.
11. On 28 November Miss D complained to the Council that she should be in a higher welfare group and housing band so she could be quickly moved. The Council replied on 18 December that it had followed the correct process assessing her welfare needs in 2023. That day Miss D asked the Council to escalate her complaint and reiterated she did not agree with the outcome of the welfare need assessment. On 17 January 2025 the Council issued its final stage response. It acknowledged it had failed to consider whether the doctors letter provided at the end of 2024 made a difference to Miss D’s banding. It apologised and explained it had now assessed the additional evidence. It did not alter the banding because the letter restated information the Council already was aware of in 2023. The Council also said it should have considered making a referral for Miss D to its Prevention and Casework Team who dealt with homelessness. That Team could assess whether it was reasonable for Miss D to remain in her own home or if she should be accepted as homeless and offered temporary accommodation. An Officer would contact her to discuss this. The Council said that Miss D’s welfare assessment had been carried out correctly, and she was in the correct band. Also on that day an Officer from the Prevention and Casework Team spoke to Miss D. She told the Council she did not want to give up her social housing tenancy and move to a private rental property. She also could not stay in a flat or shared accommodation. It was agreed the Council would not progress a homelessness application. When I spoke to Miss D in September, she confirmed that she did not want to pursue a homelessness application.

What should have happened

Welfare assessments

12. As set out in the Council’s Allocations Policy, a resident seeking rehousing because their current accommodation is adversely impacting on a medical condition can apply to the Council for a welfare assessment. They should complete the self-assessment form detailing their circumstances and provide supporting evidence from a professional such as an OT. A letter from a GP is not sufficient. The case is then considered by two separate Housing Officers who independently assess the evidence against the ‘welfare matrix’ to determine if the applicant should be awarded welfare need.
13. Welfare need falls into 3 levels, medium, high and urgent. For applicants where their mental health has been affected the criteria to award urgent status includes: a life changing event/ life threatening event or a police referral or a situation requiring rehousing in the very near future to prevent serious repercussions to mental health. High welfare need includes: an applicant whose current housing is causing significant concerns to mental health from abuse from others or risk to self.
14. Once the Council reach a decision it will notify the applicant in writing. The Council has introduced a new template decision letter that includes an explanation of what evidence was assessed and how the decision was reached.
15. The Council will only consider OT reports, as part of a welfare assessment, received within 12 months of them being issued.

Direct offers

16. Under the Allocations Policy the Council mainly advertises properties and applicants bid for them. However it recognises in some cases a direct offer of housing is more appropriate. The policy states the Council will consider a direct offer in a range of circumstances including applicants owed a statutory homelessness duty, downsizers, a need for supported accommodation, serious domestic abuse, properties designated as fully wheelchair accessible.
17. The Council has told me that it is operating a different policy to the published scheme. It only makes direct offers to people where it owes a statutory homelessness duty or a property is designated as fully wheelchair accessible.

Adapted properties/ bungalows

18. The Allocations Policy sets out how the Council has the right to restrict some advertised properties to certain groups (for example age restricted housing for older applicants). The Council can also prioritise applicants with an assessed physical disability for an adapted property (such as a bungalow) that meets their medical needs.

Was there fault by the Council

19. The Council has already accepted in its January 2025 complaint response that it failed to consider the medical evidence provided by Miss D at the end of 2024.
20. There is additional fault because the Council failed to identify the OT report received in September 2024 had a small amendment to the 2023 version. The revised document changed the recommendation for housing type from Miss D benefitting from a property without neighbours above or below her to Miss D would benefit from a bungalow. Whilst the Council should have checked the document and spotted the amendment, I can also see why this fault occurred. The document was not flagged to the Council as a revised report, and it was still dated August 2023. Whilst there is fault by the Council it has confirmed the 2024 OT report would not alter its assessment of Miss D’s welfare needs given the new document simply clarifies what was already set out in the 2023 version (that Miss D would benefit from a property without neighbours above or below her).
21. I have not found any additional fault in how the Council assessed Miss D’s case. In respect of the doctors letter the Council correctly advised Miss D that it did not provide any new evidence that would alter its assessment of her welfare need or housing band. Miss D feels she should be in a higher band with urgent welfare need. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong. In this case I am satisfied the Council adhered to the correct process when assessing Miss D’s housing need.
22. The decision letter used by the Council in 2023 is not sufficient as it fails to detail what evidence was considered and how a decision was made. So whilst I have not found evidence of fault in how the Council considered the evidence provided by Miss D in 2023, I do find the letter to her was inadequate. The Council has since updated its standard letter to include an explanation of what evidence was seen and how a decision was made.
23. The Council accepted in its final stage complaint response that it should have considered whether Miss D was homeless at home due to her situation with a neighbour. The Council did contact Miss D in January 2025 and confirmed she did not want to go ahead with a homelessness application.
24. Miss D feels the Council should have made a direct offer of accommodation to her. The Allocations Policy sets out where a direct offer is considered. Miss D does not fall into any of those groups unfortunately and there was no requirement on the Council to make a direct offer to her. However there is fault, which does not cause an injustice to Miss D, because the Council has told me it works to a more restricted policy for direct offers where only two groups are considered. That is not something the Council can do. It must adhere to the policy set out in the published scheme (the Allocations Policy) and cannot introduce new, informal, policies to alter the published scheme. To be clear this fault does not impact Miss D as she was ineligible for a direct offer under the wider criteria set out in the Allocations Policy.
25. Miss D says the Council did not consider the full OT report in 2023. The Council has confirmed it considered the document provided to it by Adult Social Care. I have not found any fault in this matter.
26. Miss D feels it is unfair she has been unable to successfully bid for a bungalow. There is no fault in this matter. Whilst I appreciate it is frustrating and distressing for Miss D to remain in her home the Council has the right to prioritise applicants with an assessed physical need for a level access property. This may make it difficult for Miss D to get the type of accommodation she wants but it is not fault by the Council.

Did the fault cause an injustice

27. The delay in referring Miss D for a homelessness application did not cause an injustice because Miss D did not want to make an application. The issues with the restricted direct offer policy being used by the Council also did not cause Miss D an injustice because even under the policy set out in the published scheme, she was not eligible for a direct offer of housing.
28. The 2023 decision letter to Miss D did not explain what evidence had been assessed or how a decision was made. This could have caused Miss D uncertainty about whether her case had been correctly considered. The failure to recognise the 2024 OT report had been revised did not cause an injustice to Miss D because the minor amendments in the documents did not provide significant new information that would enable the Council to alter its welfare assessment.

Back to top

Action

29. The Council has already taken actions to address the faults it identified in January 2025. It has made service improvements to remind officers about the need to consider if an applicant should be considered as homeless and it has updated its assessment decision letter. Those are welcome changes, but the Council should also consider issuing an apology letter to Miss D for the inadequate decision letter sent in 2023 and the failure to pick up on the revised 2024 OT report.
30. The Council should also confirm it will adhere to the published Allocations Policy rather than using a non-published restricted policy on direct offers.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this investigation ending.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman