Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council on Mrs T’s complaint of it leaving the family in unsuitable accommodation between February and August 2019. It offered her a property which she viewed and refused. She unsuccessfully challenged its suitability by way of review. There was no fault on her complaint about it refusing to apply for a disabled facilities grant. Officers visited and decided the works were not appropriate or practical because of their cost and size of the site. Nor was there fault with the processing of her 3 unsuccessful bids for accommodation.

The complaint

1. Miss S complains on behalf of her disabled mother, Mrs T, that the Council:
1. Left her and her brother in unsuitable housing without bathing facilities, a dangerous external ramp, and them being unable to dine together;
2. Refused to apply for a disabled facilities grant to cover the cost of a surveyor’s adaptations; and
3. Offered unsuitable alternative accommodation and refused to make any further direct offers of accommodation which means they must bid under its housing allocation scheme, which has no suitable and adapted properties.
2. As a result, she was put to significant time and trouble pursuing the complaint while the ongoing living conditions in the property cause the family distress.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. The paragraph at the end of this draft decision explains why I have not investigated the following:
1. Any complaint Miss S has about the way the Council decided their homeless application;
2. The management of her accommodation by the landlord; and
3. Any complaint she has about the Council’s actions that took place before February 2019.
4. I exercised discretion to investigate her complaint from February 2019 because of the family’s health and living problems. She complained to us in October 2020 which usually means we investigate any complaint she had about the Council’s actions that took place from October 2019. This is because complaints before that date are ‘late’ complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered all the information Miss S sent, the notes a colleague made of his telephone conversation with her, and the Council’s response to our enquiries, a copy of which I sent her.
10. I also considered Miss S’s previous complaints. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss S and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

11. Mrs T is a Council tenant. She lives in her 1-bedroom bungalow with her son, Mr U, which she says is unsuitable for their needs. Miss S, her daughter who is their carer, lives with them.
12. Mrs T wants to move to a suitable 3-bedroom home. Despite being in Band A under the Council’s allocation scheme, she has not seen suitably adapted 3-bedroom ground floor properties for which she can bid. In 2019, the Council accepted they were homeless and owed a duty to secure them accommodation. This duty lasted until August 2019 when Mrs T refused an offer of a property (Flat 1). She unsuccessfully challenged the decision that the property was suitable. The Council confirmed it discharged its homeless duty to secure them accommodation.
13. I now consider each of her complaints:

Complaint a): Unsuitable housing

14. Miss S complains their house is unsuitable for their needs. Mrs T and Mr U both use wheelchairs and have various health problems. Miss S points out they cannot eat together because of the small size of the house. Mr U sleeps in the bedroom, Mrs T sleeps in the living room, and Miss S sleeps on the living room floor.
15. She complains bathing is also a problem for Mrs T and Mr U as the bathroom has no wheelchair access, and both need hoisting for all transfers.
16. Miss S is unhappy with the external ramp fitted because it becomes slippery in the rain.

Analysis

17. I found no fault on this complaint and in reaching this view, took the following into account:
1. While the Council said it offered her Flat 1 in February 2019, I have not seen a copy of this offer. I have seen an offer it made in March for Flat 1.
2. The Council received a medical note in February confirming Miss S unfit for work until April, a copy of which I have seen. This meant it could not ask her about viewing Flat 1 until the note expired.
3. At the end of the note’s period in April, the Council offered her a viewing. I have seen copy correspondence between the Council and Miss S’s solicitors about making arrangements for her to view Flat 1.
4. I have also seen evidence of correspondence between the Council and her solicitors in May about her concerns with Flat 1 with the Council suggesting she view it. For example, the Council emailed her solicitor to say it would send the occupational therapist housing needs reports and social services assessments to her support provider to allay her concerns.
5. The family viewed the property in June and 3 days later, refused the offer. The Council received an 11-page request for it to review the suitability of Flat 1 along with 39 pages of medical evidence. I have seen a copy of the request and medical evidence.
6. Between June/July, the Council explained it investigated its suitability and the medical evidence. In July, it asked the district medical officer to consider the medical evidence received.
7. In August, the Council received the district medical officer’s report which concluded the property was suitable. The Council reoffered her Flat 1 as a result. Its letter responded to her concerns about its suitability and the feasibility of the adaptations proposed.
8. In September, Mrs S challenged the suitability of this offer.
9. In December, the Council carried out a review of its decision and rejected her request. This set out why the occupational therapist (OT) believed the property was suitable once adaptations were done.
10. On balance, I am satisfied the Council, during this period, offered Mrs T Flat 1 and made various attempts through the family’s solicitor for them to view it. When she rejected the offer, and sent it further medical evidence, it sought the views of the district medical officer before giving her a further chance to accept the property. At this point, Mrs T asked for a review of the suitability of the offer which the Council then arranged to do.

Complaint b): Disabled facilities grant

18. Miss S sent the Council an application for a disabled facilities grant (the grant) in January 2019. This is an application for an award from the Council to pay for essential housing adaptations to help disabled people stay in their own homes. The changes must be ‘necessary to meet your needs’ and the work must be ‘reasonable and practical’. The maximum amount it pays is £30,000. She argues it is possible to adapt it at the cost of £70,000 but due to financial limits of this grant, this would need 2 grants to cover the costs.
19. Following the application, the family’s OT from adult social care made a referral to the Private Housing Service which assesses and administers all applications for grants.
20. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed it cannot be adapted to accommodate 3 people.
21. As noted above, I have seen a copy of the grant report carried out after the Council received her application.
22. The report recommended considering other housing options to meet the family’s needs. It also noted what the OT had recommended in 2017 as the property needed wheelchair accessibility internally and externally, with wheelchair accessibility turning space in all rooms, and a lack of bedrooms for all 3 of them. The OT recommended rehousing the family in a property that meets their needs or can be adapted. The report concluded the family was at a significant degree of risk if they remained in the property, including a high risk of fire.

Analysis

23. I found no fault on this complaint. This is because both the OT and the officer preparing the grant report visited the property together to assess the application. The Council rejected the application because the works needed are not necessary, appropriate, reasonable, or practicable to carry out. This was because the officer, and the OT, concluded their needs will be more reasonably and practicably met through moving them to a suitable property.
24. Having read the report, I am satisfied the Council had valid reasons for rejecting this application and properly considered it. It is clear the scale of works needed was beyond both the financial limit of the grant itself and the physical size of the property.

Complaint c): Unsuitable accommodation offered and bidding

25. In response to our enquiries, the Council said Miss S is aware of the need to bid for social housing. As noted, in August 2019, the Council offered the family a Flat 1 which they refused. This was made under the homeless legislation. The family challenged the decision by way of review which was not upheld.
26. The Council confirmed she made the following bids:

• a 3-bedroom house in August 2019. The Council rejected her bid because the property could not be adapted to meet her needs. This was subject to a detailed review when she challenged its decision;
• a 3-bedroom house in July 2021. In response to my draft decision, Miss S noted this bid was not prioritised by the Council. The property was offered to a homeless applicant with higher priority. At this point, Mrs T and her family were no longer assessed as homeless so had lower priority; and
• a 2-bedroom bungalow in September 2021. The Council shortlisted her for the property but, she raised extensive enquiries about its suitability. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed the property cannot be adapted to meet her needs. It quoted Miss S’s email shortly after visiting the property. This said she had not been able to view it but felt it unsuitable as it only has 2 bedrooms and was not adapted for wheelchair users. In response to my draft decision, Miss S confirmed neither Mrs T nor Mr U could get in to the property when they went to view it. This was because it was not wheelchair accessible.

Analysis

27. The Council made an offer of a property under its homelessness obligations which Mrs T refused and unsuccessfully challenged. We cannot look at any complaint she may have about this property because she could have challenged the review decision at court had she wished. This means any such complaint is not within our jurisdiction.
28. Mrs T then had no option but to bid for properties through the Council’s choice based letting scheme. Following her unsuccessful challenge, Mrs T failed to bid for any properties for a period of 9 months. When she did, the Council allocated the property to a homeless applicant who had higher priority than her. Two months later, she made a further bid. The Council shortlisted her for the property but, after queries from Mrs T, it decided it could not adapt the property to meet her needs.
29. I found no fault on this complaint. Mrs T has only made 3 bids for accommodation since August 2019, all of which failed. I found no fault in the processing of any of these bids. Mrs T needs to be more proactive in bidding for properties.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I found no fault on Mrs T’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

31. I did not investigate the following complaints:
1. Any complaint Mrs T had about how the Council dealt with her family’s homeless application. This is because the Council discharged its homeless duty to them in December 2019 when Mrs T unsuccessfully challenged this decision by way of a section 202 review about the offered property’s suitability. I have seen a copy of the section 202 review decision. It advised her of her right to appeal the decision to the County Court. As she had a right to go to court, we cannot investigate it.
2. Any complaint she has about the management of her accommodation as this is not within our jurisdiction but that of the Housing Ombudsman. This includes any complaint about repairs and the condition of the installed ramp.
3. Any complaint she has about the Council’s actions before February 2019. This is because our previous investigation dealt with its actions up to that date.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman