London Borough of Hounslow (25 012 073)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not offering housing occupational therapy services outside its area. The Council accepted it had not given clear advice about this at the outset. It has taken appropriate steps to remedy the injustice and prevent recurrence. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
- Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to arrange joint viewings with a housing occupational therapist if the property being viewed was outside his area. He said this caused him uncertainty about whether he would get advice about the suitability if the property before accepting it and about whether any adaptations he needed would be done before he moved in. He said the Council should ensure a joint visit regardless of where the property being viewed was.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mr X.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
What happened
- The Council accepted Mr X’s housing register application on the grounds that his current property does not meet his medical needs. As part of the assessment process a housing occupational therapist (OT) assessed Mr X’s needs and how his current property was affecting him. They recommended that when Mr X viewed potential alternative properties, he should visit jointly with a housing OT to check the property met his needs. The housing OT could also give advice about whether any adaptations were needed.
- Mr X subsequently asked for support with a viewing in Council B’s area and was told he could not do a joint visit with a housing OT unless the property was in this Council’s area. In its complaint response, the Council:
- explained this was because he did not have the resources to offer the service outside its area;
- confirmed it had contacted Council B and provided an email for Mr X to use to request support from a housing OT for viewings in Council B’s area; and
- apologised for not explaining the limitations of its service at the outset and offered to pay him £30 for the injustice caused. It said it would update the information on its website to make this clear for everyone.
My assessment
- Whilst I appreciate the difficulties Mr X is experiencing; the Council is not required to provide services outside its area. It accepted it should have given clear advice earlier and has offered an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. It has also taken steps to ensure clear information is available to everyone in future. I am satisfied with the action the Council has taken and is taking. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.
- For these reasons, we will not investigate further.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has taken and is taking appropriate action to address the complaint and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman