Summary: The Council failed to review Ms X’s banding when she provided further evidence, failed to discuss the option of a disabled facilities grant for adaptations and delayed responding to some of her communications. That caused Ms X distress and leaves her with some uncertainty. An agreement to reconsider Ms X’s banding, a discussion about adaptations with the housing association, apology and payment to Ms X are satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complained the Council:
• failed to consider her overcrowded circumstances, health issues and unmet adaptation needs when giving her band 2 priority;
• wrongly failed to consider a disabled facilities grant for adaptations to her property given the likely lengthy wait for rehousing; and
• failed to respond to her communications and requests for support.
2. Ms X says the Council’s actions have caused her stress and uncertainty which has worsened her health conditions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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

7. I am not exercising the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate any period before August 2024, which is 12 months before the complaint to the Ombudsman. That is because I see no reason why Ms X could not have complained to the Ombudsman at the time.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Ms X's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
9. Ms X and the organisation 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

The Council's allocation scheme (the allocation scheme)

10. This sets the bands for Council allocations.
11. Band 1 is for urgent cases which includes:
• Severe health/disability related housing need. This is where:
1. the applicant has a limited life expectancy and housing is required to ensure the provision of suitable care.
2. The applicant's health is so severely affected by the home they currently occupy that it is likely to become life threatening.
3. The applicant is housebound in their current home and needs to move to an alternative home suitable for their needs.
• Unsanitary or unsatisfactory accommodation which poses an ongoing and serious threat to health.
• Decants (such as those affected by refurbishment/demolition).
• Maximising the use of housing stock (such as those under occupying or in an adapted property they do not need).
• Overcrowding where the occupant needs three or more bedrooms that poses a serious health hazard.
• Fleeing violence, domestic abuse and threat to life.
• Former Armed Services personnel, bereaved spouses and civil partners.
• Care Experienced Young Adults (CEYA) in work.
• Exceptional circumstances agreed by Director's discretion - for circumstances not covered by the scheme that have complex and multiple needs.
12. Band 2 is for the following categories:
• Residents in employment or training.
• Those registered as foster carers and adoptive parents with Croydon Council.
• Homeless prevention.
• Care Experienced Young Adults (CEYA)
13. Band 3 is for:
• Overcrowding - People living in moderately overcrowded accommodation (needing two bedrooms). Those who are overcrowded by one bedroom do not qualify.
• Health-related housing grounds (medical) - People with moderate health or disability problems where the housing conditions directly contribute to causing serious ill health.
14. The allocation scheme says if an applicant has an exceptional need that is not covered by this scheme, the Corporate Director of Housing has the authority to make a decision based on the merits of the case.
15. The use of this discretionary power will be subject to regular monitoring by the Council.
16. Circumstances where such a decision might be required may include, amongst others:
• Households with complex and multiple needs, not fully covered by other panels or by the allocations policy.
• Modern slavery cases.
17. The Council has a discretion to make an allocation of accommodation through a direct offer of a particular property to an applicant. Certain applicants will only receive a direct offer. The policy lists examples as to why the Council may decide to directly allocate a property.
18. For assessing health related housing priority any medical assessment looks at how the current accommodation affects the health or disability of a household member. The assessment is based on whether the health of the applicant or a member of their household's health would improve by moving to alternative accommodation.
19. Depending on the information on the application, the Council may seek advice from its medical adviser and/or additional information from a health professional such as an occupational therapist, although the final decision on any application is made by the Housing Allocation Manager. The Council may also request additional information from the GP or hospital consultant. Consideration will also be given to all factors that may be impacting on the applicant’s health such as overcrowding, the floor level of the accommodation, and room size.

Government guidance: Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England (the guidance)

20. The housing authority must be satisfied that the relevant works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person.
21. Where the relevant works have been judged to be necessary and appropriate, the housing authority then has to consider whether it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works having “regard to the age and condition” of the property. The reason for this test is that it may not be a good use of resources to award a DFG to adapt an old, run-down building.
22. Each application should be considered on its own merits but where a home is in serious disrepair or beyond economic repair then a housing authority may consider that the relevant works are not reasonable and practicable. In these cases, it would be good practice for local authorities to provide information and advice to the applicant on their housing options.
23. Other issues, such as whether the property is otherwise suitable for the disabled person are not relevant considerations.

The Council’s private sector housing assistance policy

24. This covers disabled facilities grants. It says funding is discretionary (with the exception of mandatory disabled facilities grants) and is financially limited through an annual budget set by the government and the Council.
25. The mandatory disabled facilities grant is intended to help people with disabilities to live more independently in their own home. It includes essential adaptations to enable a disabled person to gain access into their dwelling, to move around it and to access kitchen and bathroom facilities.
26. The Council shall not approve an application for a mandatory DFG unless they are satisfied that the relevant works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled occupant, and that it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the relevant works having regard to the age and condition of the dwelling, qualifying houseboat or qualifying park home, or the building.
27. An occupational therapist will visit the property to identify the needs of the disabled person and assess what works are necessary and appropriate. A building surveyor determines whether the proposed works are reasonable and practicable, having regard to the age and condition of the property.
28. A mandatory disabled facilities grant is awarded for works that are the most economical means of meeting the disabled person's needs.
29. Housing associations would normally be expected to fund works from their rent surplus funds unless the housing association can prove that they do not have the available funding in which case a disabled facilities grant application would be considered from the tenant.

What happened

30. Ms X lives in a three-bedroom housing association property which is overcrowded due to the number of people living in the property. Ms X has some medical needs and in 2022 an occupational therapy assessment took place which resulted in handrails on the stairs due to a risk of falls. Ms X has been registered on the Council’s housing register in band 2 since 2022, although the start date for her application is 2019.
31. Following a complaint in January 2025 a Council officer spoke to Ms X. Ms X talked about moving closer to her parents who live in a different council area. The officer explained the Council did not have social housing stock outside the borough. The officer noted the housing association had said it could not make major adaptations to the property although it had put a banister on the stairs. The officer noted due to overcrowding Ms X could not access the housing association’s housing fund.
32. Following that the Council wrote to Ms X to respond to her complaint. The Council apologised for delays responding to her correspondence and said it would offer her further help. The Council explained due to high demand Ms X would have a long wait for a larger property. The Council said it would look again at Ms X’s housing need, taking into account the updates from the occupational therapist. The Council confirmed Ms X was in band 2.
33. Following contact from Ms X’s representative about adaptations to the property the Council explained it could not force the housing association to allow adaptations.
34. Ms X contacted the Council again following the complaint response to ask what further support the Council would provide. Ms X chased the Council in February 2025 and then provided the Council with a copy of an occupational therapist’s home environment report for one of her children. That home environment report recommended Ms X’s daughter have a separate bedroom.
35. Ms X provided the housing association with a copy of the home environment report. Ms X also provided a separate home environment report completed for one of her other children. That home environment report also recommended that child have a separate bedroom.
36. A Council officer spoke to Ms X in March 2025. The Council acknowledged receipt of the home environment report. The Council asked Ms X to clarify what bathroom facilities she preferred as she had said she wanted an adapted wet room and a bath. The Council told Ms X most of its properties could not accommodate both. The Council also told Ms X it was waiting for the information she had agreed to send about her landlord.
37. When Ms X’s representative contacted the Council again about Ms X’s circumstances the Council said it had asked Ms X for further information about the current property condition. The Council said when it received that information it would reassess Ms X’s housing register application. Ms X’s representative responded to seek clarification about who was responsible for the adaptations and to say he understood Ms X had provided the information the Council had asked for.
38. Ms X’s representative chased the Council again in April 2025. The Council asked Ms X to provide the occupational therapy report she had referred to as it said it did not have a copy. The Council said it had a copy of a report for one of Ms X’s children and would assess that to decide whether it should award further priority.
39. Ms X’s representative chased the Council in May 2025 but there is no evidence of further correspondence after that.

Analysis

40. Ms X says the Council failed to consider her overcrowded circumstances, health issues and unmet adaptation needs when it gave her band 2 priority on its housing register.
41. I set out in paragraphs 11-13 what the Council’s allocation scheme says about the band a housing applicant is allocated. I am satisfied the level of overcrowding Ms X has and her family’s medical needs would normally place her in band 3. I am satisfied though the Council has placed Ms X in band 2 because her husband works full-time. What that means is even if the Council had failed to consider overcrowding at Ms X’s property or the medical needs of family members it would not have resulted in an increased banding. I therefore could not say the Council wrongly placed Ms X in band 2.
42. However, Ms X has since provided occupational therapy reports to the Council for two of her children. Those occupational therapy reports recommend each child have a separate bedroom due to their autism. I have no evidence the Council reviewed the number of bedrooms the family require in light of that advice. That is despite the fact the Council agreed to consider those reports. Had the Council done that it could affect the number of bedrooms overcrowded Ms X is, which could also affect her banding. Failure to consider those points and explain the Council’s reasoning is fault.
43. The decision about whether the evidence Ms X has provided justifies additional bedrooms for two of her children is a matter for the Council, I cannot speculate about its decision. However, I consider Ms X has some frustration about the Council not considering her circumstances and uncertainty about whether she would have received band 1 priority, on the basis of being overcrowded by three bedrooms, if the Council had considered her evidence properly. As part of the remedy for that I recommended the Council apologise to Ms X and arrange for a review of her banding. Following that the Council should write to Ms X to confirm its decision. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
44. Ms X says the Council failed to consider whether she had exceptional circumstances to be included in band 1 or to receive a direct offer. I have no evidence the Council considered either of those points.
45. I note though the Council agreed to further assess Ms X’s circumstances once it received updated information from her and her landlord. I also note the Council asked Ms X for some further evidence in March 2025. Given Ms X’s representative chased the Council in April and May 2025 I would have expected the Council to explain what information was outstanding. Failure to do that is fault. I have already recommended the Council carry out a review of Ms X’s banding to take into account the home environment reports she has provided. As part of that the Council may want to ask Ms X for any outstanding information it considers it needs.
46. Ms X says the Council failed to take into account that she is willing to move outside the borough to secure a suitable property. I am satisfied Ms X has explained to the Council she would consider housing closer to her parents, who live outside the borough. I am also satisfied though the Council has given Ms X advice about how to look for a property in another council’s area and has contacted her housing association for it to consider whether it has any suitable properties. I am satisfied that is appropriate advice and action given the Council does not have control over properties available in other areas. I am also not aware of any nomination rights the Council has for the area Ms X wants to move to. In those circumstances I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
47. Ms X says the Council unreasonably refused to consider allowing her to have a disabled facilities grant to adapt her property. Ms X says the Council failed to take into account the lengthy wait for a suitable property and the fact the existing property is impacting on her, and her daughter’s, health issues.
48. I have seen no evidence the Council said it would not consider a disabled facilities grant to adapt the property. However, it is clear there has been some confusion in this case between the role of the Council and the role of the housing association, as Ms X’s landlord. I am not satisfied the Council properly explained those issues to Ms X and that is fault.
49. In correspondence with Ms X’s representative the Council said it cannot force Ms X’s housing association to make adaptations to the home. The Council has therefore referred Ms X back to the housing association. That implies the housing association has refused to allow any adaptations at Ms X’s property.
50. I have seen no evidence to support that conclusion. There is evidence the housing association has refused to consider using its own funds to adapt the property. However, I have not seen any evidence of the Council discussing with the housing association the option of adapting the property, funded by a disabled facilities grant. Failure to discuss that point with the housing association is fault.
51. I have also seen evidence the occupational therapist told Ms X adaptations were not possible as she would still be living in an overcrowded property and need to move. As I set out in paragraph 23, the guidance is clear other issues relating to the suitability of a property are not matters the Council can take into account when considering a disabled facilities grant. What that means is whether the property is overcrowded should not influence the Council’s decision making.
52. I appreciate though as the Council does not own Ms X’s property it is not in a position to progress a disabled facilities grant unless Ms X’s landlord says it would allow adaptations to go ahead. So, while I consider the Council at fault for not discussing that issue with the housing association and for suggesting the property could not be adapted due to overcrowding I could not say that meant Ms X missed out on adaptations. However, I am satisfied she is left with distress and uncertainty about whether the issues could have been resolved had the Council acted as it should have done.
53. As part of the remedy for this part of the complaint I recommended the Council arrange a meeting with Ms X and the housing association to discuss adaptations. If the housing association says it would allow any assessed adaptations to take place the Council should arrange for an updated occupational therapy report. If that occupational therapy report recommends adaptations the Council should then support Ms X to put in a disabled facilities grant application, unless it has changed her banding following the review and she is likely to get a larger property in the short term. The Council should also provide guidance to its occupational therapists to make clear what the statutory guidance says about what they can consider when assessing a property for adaptations. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
54. Ms X says the Council consistently fails to respond to her communications and requests for support. For the period I am investigating there have been some communications from Ms X and Ms X’s representative which they have had to chase. I also have no evidence the Council responded to Ms X to explain what support it could provide her with. Nor do I have any evidence of correspondence with Ms X after May 2025. That is despite the fact the Council had agreed to review Ms X’s banding. Failure to respond to Ms X and her representative is fault.
55. I have already recommended the Council review Ms X’s banding as part of the remedy for this complaint. I also recommended the Council apologise to Ms X and pay her £600 to reflect her distress, uncertainty and the time and trouble she had to go to. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.

Back to top

Action

56. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Ms X for the distress and uncertainty she experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Ms X £600;
• review Ms X’s banding, taking into account the home environment occupational therapy reports she provided for two of her children. Following that the Council should write to Ms X to explain its decision;
• arrange a meeting with Ms X’s housing association and invite Ms X to that meeting to discuss the possibility of adaptations to her property. If the housing association agree it would potentially agree to adaptations the Council should arrange for an updated occupational therapy assessment, following which it should support Ms X to apply for a disabled facilities grant for any recommended works. That is unless a review of Ms X’s banding places her in band 1 and she is likely to secure a property in the short term;
• provide guidance to occupational therapists carrying out assessments for housing adaptations to make clear what government guidance says about what matters can be taken into account.
57. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

58. I find fault causing injustice. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman