Summary: Miss X is a wheelchair user and complained the Council left her in unsuitable accommodation for 4 years. She says the impact has been significant. We considered the Council’s remedy was not sufficient. The Council has agreed an increased remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complains the Council failed to rehouse her for 4 years when she was effectively homeless due to being in unsuitable accommodation. Miss X is disabled and says she had to sleep in her car. She said this had a significant impact on her disability and her physical and mental health. Miss X says the Council has not properly considered the impact on her and the remedy it offered is inadequate.

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 an injustice, 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered the complaint and the copy correspondence she provided. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
5. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In 2017 the Ombudsman decided the Council was at fault because it failed to offer Miss X suitable accommodation for almost a year. Miss X is disabled and a wheelchair user. She was living in accommodation which was inaccessible due to stairs and she could not use all the rooms or escape in the event of fire. The Council confirmed it could not adapt the property to make it suitable for a wheelchair user. The Council agreed our recommendation to make every effort to find suitable accommodation as a matter of urgency and to pay Miss X £2000. The Council then offered Miss X a property. However, Miss X did not view the property.
7. Miss X says that between 2017 and 2021 she made bids via the Council’s choice based letting scheme and the Council offered her seven properties. But she says that 5 were unsuitable because they were not wheelchair accessible and the Council’s housing officer did not turn up for the viewing appointments for the other two properties.
8. In June 2021 Miss X complained to the Council that since the Ombudsman’s decision in 2017, the Council should have made her a suitable direct offer via a management transfer. Councils can make direct offers in certain circumstances without advertising on lettings schemes. However, Miss X said had not received any suitable offers and could not make bids because no properties were suitable for wheelchair users.
9. Miss X said that the Council’s delay in providing a suitable property had caused her significant physical and mental health issues. She said she could not get into her home via the stairs using her wheelchair. She had to drag herself up using her hands which caused pain. As a result, Miss X says she sometimes slept in her car, or she used her benefits to pay for other accommodation or slept at friends’ homes or at her family’s home. Miss X said she was a vulnerable homeless person and the Council’s lack of action had caused her extreme distress and suffering.
10. The Council did not respond to Miss X’s complaint, and she chased a response in July 2021 and again in early September.
11. The Council offered Miss X a property in September 2021 which it stated it could adapt to make it wheelchair accessible. Miss X accepted the property.
12. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in October 2021. It apologised for its delay in responding. The Council gave details of the properties she had bid for and it had offered. It accepted that some of these offers were not wheelchair accessible and it apologised for this. The Council said very few wheelchair accessible properties were available. It said it could not respond regarding an officer not attending a viewing, as Miss X had not given enough details. It noted she had now started her tenancy at the new property.
13. Miss X remained dissatisfied and pursued her complaint through the Council’s complaints procedure. She said the Council was aware of her needs following assessments, but had offered her non wheelchair accessible properties between 2017 and 2021. She said she had to pay bills for a property she could not use. She also had to pay to stay elsewhere because she could not use the property. She said the Council had not addressed the mental and emotional impact on her. She explained that due to the circumstances she was in, she could not pursue her life plans such as having relationships or starting a family.
14. In its response to Miss X at the final stage of its complaints procedure in March 2022, the Council confirmed she was in band A, its highest priority band. It said that applicants in band A had an urgent need to move and should not be left on that band indefinitely. These cases should be reviewed every six months.
15. In Miss X’s case the Council said it had made one direct offer of a property in 2017. As Miss X did not respond, it withdrew the offer in January 2018. The Council said it should have been more proactive and contacted Miss X or made a direct offer between January 2018 and July 2018. It said it should have reviewed her case after July 2018 given that she had not made any successful bids herself.
16. The Council considered whether a suitable property for Miss X would have been available, which it could have offered her directly, as a management transfer. It noted that it had made offers to other applicants with similar needs but slightly lower priority in September and October 2018. Therefore, it considered there had been an unacceptable delay on its part of three years during which Miss X had been living in unsuitable accommodation.
17. The Council noted it had delayed responding to her final stage complaint. The Council apologised to Miss X and offered her £5600 as a financial remedy.
18. The Council said that it would review its process for keeping band A applications under review to ensure that officers reviewed these cases every six months if an applicant was unsuccessful in bidding.
19. In its response to our enquiries the Council said it based its remedy on the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and at the rate of £150 per month for 36 months, as well as £200 for its delays and her time and trouble in making the complaint. The Council says that Miss X did not raise the issue of being unable to live in her flat and did not provide evidence of living elsewhere. It says that it also took into account that Miss X could have made more bids herself in order to resolve her housing situation.

Analysis

20. The Council has accepted that it did not review Miss X’s housing application every six months or make sufficient direct offers from September 2018. The Council made only one direct offer between 2017 and 2021. This was fault because the Council did not make efforts to try and ensure a vulnerable disabled person was offered alternative accommodation to suit her needs.
21. I consider Miss X was left in unsuitable accommodation for three years longer than necessary. She was unable to access her home without great difficulty and could not fully use all the rooms. This limited her independence and had a significant impact on her physically and emotionally.
22. I note that Miss X says that she could not access her home at all for a period of years and that she paid for alternative accommodation or slept in her car. However, I have not seen sufficient evidence that Miss X paid for alternative accommodation or that she slept in her car. I have looked at the reviews of Miss X’s care and support plans between 2018 and 2021. Miss X had an opportunity in these reviews to raise the problems she was having in her home. She refers to her difficulties getting into the flat but does not say she is living in her car or paying to stay elsewhere. However, in July 2021 the social worker noted that Miss X said that “she is currently not living at her address as she is unable to access this due to the stairs she requires to negotiate” and that she was living with her mother and sometimes her sister.
23. I have considered the Council’s offer to pay Miss X £5600 for its delays in making a suitable direct offer. I do not consider that this is an adequate remedy in view of the impact of the unsuitable accommodation on Miss X. I have considered our Guidance on Remedies. This refers to a remedy ranging between £150 and £350 per month when a complainant is deprived of suitable accommodation due to a fault by the Council. Taking account of all the circumstances, I consider a more appropriate remedy is £250 per month for 36 months plus £200 for Miss X’s time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.
24. The Council has provided evidence it has made a service improvement to ensure it reviews band A applicants’ cases every six months. I am satisfied the Council has taken action to prevent other service users being affected by the fault here.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. I recommended that within one month of my decision the Council pays Miss X £9200 for its failure to review her housing transfer application and consider making further direct offers.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

27. The Council has agreed our recommendation. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman