Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to adequately address his family’s housing priority and adaptation needs. We found the Council’s failure to record how it determined an extension to Mr X’s current property would not be feasible is fault. As are the Council’s delays and poor communication. These faults have caused Mr X avoidable distress and uncertainty over an extended period. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr X. It will also carry out a feasibility assessment to determine whether adaptations or an extension to Mr X’s home are reasonable and practicable.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has failed to adequately address his family’s housing priority and adaptation needs. In particular, the Council failed to progress recommendations made by an OT for adaptations in their property, failed to properly consider their housing priority and failed to follow up their bid on a six bedroom property.
2. Mr X says that as a result the family have lived in a property which does not meet their needs for longer than necessary and caused them to miss the opportunity to move to a suitable property. Mr X says he has also incurred financial loss as he had to buy a special bed for his child which the Council should have provided.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. Although Mr X complains about delays and failings since 2023, I have not investigated events going back that far. We expect people to come to us within 12 months of them thinking the Council has done something wrong. As Mr X contacted us in September 2025 we will consider events since September 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Disabled Facilities Grants

9. Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, councils can award Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) to people whose disability means their home needs adaptation. If the person applying meets the qualifying criteria the council must award the grant.
10. Councils only approve grants for work they decide is necessary. An occupational therapist usually assesses need.
11. The maximum amount of mandatory grant is £30,000. Grants for children are not means-tested. Councils can decide to give more help if they think it is necessary. If an adaptation is required to meet an assessed need and the cost of the works will exceed the maximum grant available, the remainder could be met either by the council using its discretionary powers or by social services departments under the other legislation.
12. A council must decide if the proposed works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person. It must also be satisfied it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the works given the condition of the property to be adapted. In cases where major adaptations are required and it is difficult to provide a cost-effective solution, councils may consider the possibility of supporting a person to move to a more suitable home.
13. Under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, councils with social services functions have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need in their area. A child with a disability is considered to be a child in need. Under the Act, councils can provide financial assistance to a child or family. Such financial assistance may be unconditional or subject to repayment in full or part. Before providing financial assistance, councils should consider the child or parents’ financial circumstances. The courts have said the functions of a council under Section 17 of the Act can extend to providing major adaptations to a child’s home.

Housing allocations

14. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
15. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme in partnership with registered housing providers under Cheshire Homechoice. This enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. It uses a banding scheme to prioritise applications. Those with the highest priority will be awarded Band A and those with the lowest priority Band E.
16. The policy says Band A is only awarded to applicants who are:
• under a homeless relief duty or full housing duty and accommodated by the Council;
• unable to occupy their current accommodation; and
• armed forces personnel with a housing need and serious disability.
17. Applicants can only bid for accommodation that is the right size for their household's needs.

What happened here

18. The following is a summary of the key events relevant to our consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that happened. I have referred to events prior to September 2024 for context, but they do not form part of my investigation
19. Mr and Mrs X live in a three bedroom house with their four children. Three of Mr and Mrs X’s children have additional needs and cannot safely share rooms. Mr joined the housing register in January 2023 and was initially awarded Band D and then Band C priority due to overcrowding.
20. Following an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment the Council agreed to fund a specialist bed for one of Mr X’s children, Child B. This was delivered in March 2024.
21. The Council also completed a Housing Needs Assessment (HNA). This identified the family needed a four bedroom property or a property with a second ground floor room suitable for adaptation to allow the eldest three children to have separate rooms.
22. Mr and Mrs X asked the Council to provide a specialist bed for another of their children, Child C. An OT visited Mr and Mrs X’s home in late April 2024 to carry out an assessment. The records note there is no room for a specialist bed in the room the Child C shares with a sibling and Child B’s specialist bed takes up the majority of the other bedroom.
23. A new OT visited Mr and Mrs X in late November 2024 to review the housing situation and need for an extra bedroom. The OT agreed to speak with a housing officer to see whether an extension was feasible and whether the layout could be adapted so an extra bedroom could be made internally. The OT also agreed to contact the housing options team to discuss Mr X’s banding on the housing register. There is no record of the Council’s contact with a housing officer or the housing options team at this stage.
24. At Mrs X’s request the OT contacted the housing options team in early December 2024 in relation to a property they had bid on but would not be successful with Band C priority. The housing options team told the OT Mr and Mrs X would not qualify for the property under the allocation policy.
25. In December 2024 Mr X purchased a specialist bed for Child C.
26. According to the records provided there was no further action until May 2025 when the OT contacted Mr X’s housing provider. The OT asked whether the provider would approve an extension for a single bedroom downstairs and whether they would top up any funding shortfall. The provider said it was unlikely to top up any funding and would consider extensions on a case by case basis. It suggested the OT speak to the housing provider’s adaptions officer.
27. The OT also contacted the housing options team for an update on their request to increase Mr X’s priority on the housing register. Housing Options confirmed Mr X was correctly awarded Band C for overcrowding and having a medical condition.
28. The Council allocated a third OT to Mr X’s case in June 2025. The OT visited Mr and Mrs X on 10 June 2025 and discussed the need for Band B priority to support the family to be rehoused, or to look at adaptations. The records say a double story side extension was unlikely to be agreed due to shared access; a ground floor extension at the back would leave no garden space and would be costly; and a double extension at the back was unlikely to be agreed due to the cost.
29. In terms of reconfiguring the existing layout, the records say there was not enough space to create any additional rooms downstairs. Converting a room upstairs in to two rooms would leave two very small bedrooms, without enough room for the specialist beds.
30. The OT then contacted the housing options team on 11 June 2025 and requested Mr X’s priority be increased to Band B. They explained the property could not be reconfigured to meet the family’s needs and a DFG for an extension would likely be rejected. The OT suggested Mr X’s family needed a five bedroom house or a four bedroom house with two reception rooms. Or, as a last resort, a three bedroom house with two reception rooms and space for an extension.
31. The Council awarded Band B priority on 1 July 2025.
32. On 3 July 2025 Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council about the delays and failure to support his family’s housing and adaptation needs. He complained a pattern of inaction, changes in staff, broken promises and missed opportunities had left them living in unsuitable housing for over two years. Mr X also said they had recently bid on a six bed property and asked an OT to contact the housing service before bidding closed that night to assist their bid. They received no further contact and feel they missed out on a potentially life changing opportunity for the family.
33. Mr X asked for explanations for the failings, for his case to be actively prioritised and to be reimbursed the cost of the specialist bed purchased in July 2024.
34. The Council responded on 22 July 2025. It said an OT had discussed Mr X’s situation with his housing provider who advised it was unlikely the property could be extended or adapted to meet Mr X’s family’s needs. As a result the Council considered rehousing was the most appropriate option and completed an HNA.
35. It noted the HNA recommendations can influence and limit the types of properties Mr X can bid on. Under the Council’s allocation policy, Mr X is only permitted to bin on four bedroom properties, of which there is a shortage in the Council’s area. The Council said there was a high demand for these properties, particularly from families with children who have additional and complex needs.
36. The Council apologised for delays in reallocating Mr X’s case to an OT.
37. The Council also told Mr X it was not able to ring fence properties. In exceptional circumstances it could ask a housing association to consider a management let, which allows a property to be allocated outside the usual bidding process. The Council said it was not possible to secure a management let in a short timeframe. But would explore this option going forward.
38. In relation to the bed Mr X had purchased for Child C, the Council acknowledged the OTs had recommended the use of a special bed but that this could not be implemented due to the lack of space. It noted Mr X had purchased a different bed and made adaptations to ensure Child C’s safety. The Council said OTs are not permitted to recommend or modify equipment in this way. As such it would not reimburse the cost of the bed.
39. Mr X was not satisfied by the Council’s response and asked for his complaint to be considered at stage two of the complaint process. The Council’s reviewed Mr X’s complaint and was satisfied its response of 22 July 2025 addressed the issues Mr X had raised.
40. The Council also confirmed that decisions about housing allocations are a matter for the housing officers rather than the OT service. It said no amount of communication from the OT service would have change the decision about the allocation of the property Mr X bid on in early July 2025.
41. As Mr X remains dissatisfied he has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his concerns about poor communication and delays. Mr X says that despite telling him it would, the Council did not complete a feasibility assessment or arrange for a surveyor to visit his home. He says the Council did not prepare cost calculations for possible extensions but determined any options would be rejected as they would cost more than to rehouse his family.
42. Mr X also says the bed purchased for Child C has not been modified. They have placed a temporary specialist bed within the built in cot style base of a bunk bed which has not be modified.
43. In response to our enquiries the Council says Mr X was eligible to bid on four bedroom properties as the OT team had specified they required larger specialist beds for two of their children. It also confirmed Mr X was awarded Band B priority to reflect the family’s urgent need to move.
44. It says the average wait time for a four bed property will depend on where the family want to place bids. It says the average wait time is four months but notes it has had several four bedroom houses in the last year in an area where Mr X is not bidding, which it says has brough the average down.
45. In addition, the Council says it is not directly involved in management lets as individual housing providers have their own policies regarding this. In addition each provider can only use a direct or management let for existing tenants. As the property Mr X bid on in July 2025 was not owned by his housing provider, a direct management let would not have been appropriate. The Council says it explained the position regarding management lets to Mr X in November 2025.
46. The Council also says the adaptation/ extension of Mr X’s current property was not a viable option compared to the cost of rehousing the family.

Analysis

47. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide Mr X’s priority on the housing register or whether his property can be adapted to meet his family’s needs under a DFG; that is the Council’s job. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made, and where we find fault, to determine whether a significant injustice was caused to the individual complainant.
48. There is no dispute that Mr X’s property does not currently meet his family’s needs. The Council initially awarded Mr X Band C priority on the basis of overcrowding and then awarded Band B in July 2025 based on an urgent housing need. These decision were in line with the Council’s social housing allocation policy which states:

“Households with a requirement for equipment to manage a disability which cannot be accommodated in their current home will be placed in Band B”

49. Mr X would like Band A priority but his family does not meet the published criteria for Band A. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council determined Mr X’s priority on the housing register.
50. The Council has determined an extension to Mr X’s current property would not be feasible but has not provided any records of when or how this was decided. There is no record of a feasibility assessment, or detailed options with measurements and costings, or any attempt to establish funding. It is also unclear whether Mr X’s housing provider would agree to an extension. The records provided do not suggest this has been properly explored with the housing provider.
51. I consider the Council’s failure to evidence how it has reached a decision regarding the feasibility of an extension to be fault.
52. It is clear from the documentation provided that there have been delays and periods of inactivity in the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s housing needs. This appears in part to be due to repeated changes in OTs. There has also been a lack of clarity in its communication with Mr X regarding the action it can and will take to assist him in relation to both adaptations and rehousing, including management lets. The delays and poor communication are fault.
53. Having identified fault I must consider whether this has caused Mr X an injustice. There is no evidence Mr X has missed out on being rehoused as a result of the delays in progressing his case. I recognise Mr X feels the Council’s inaction meant he missed out on a property in early July 2025. But Mr X’s family is not assessed to need or eligible for a six bedroom property. Any support from the OT would not have changed this.
54. However the delays and poor communication from the Council have caused him avoidable distress and uncertainty over an extended period.
55. Mr X would like the Council to reimburse the cost of a special bed purchased for Child C. The Council has assessed that Child C needs a specialist bed but is unable to provide this as there is no space for it in the home. Mr X has purchased a different type of bed and installed it within the lower section of bunk beds. There is no evidence Mr X consulted the Council before purchasing this bed or asked for an OT view on the suitability of this alternative bed or how it would be used. Although Mr X disagrees, the Council considers the equipment has been adapted/ modified and would not be approved. This is a decision the Council can make.
56. In the circumstance I do not consider it appropriate to recommend the Council reimburse the cost of his bed.

Back to top

Action

57. The Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X for the faults identified and the distress and uncertainty they have caused. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Mr X £500 to recognise the distress and uncertainty Mr X has experienced as a result of the faults identified.
• Carry out a feasibility assessment to determine whether adaptations or an extension to Mr X’s home are reasonable and practicable and advise Mr X in writing of the outcome.
58. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

59. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman