The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms D complained the Council had failed to properly assess her housing needs and move her to a suitable accommodation since 2011. She also said it failed to understand her needs properly before inviting her to view two properties and it did not respond properly to her complaint. We found no fault on the substantial matters of Ms D’s complaint as the Council had assessed her need and followed its Policy. However, it had failed to ensure her first viewing could go ahead as planned. The Council agreed to apologise and make payment to remedy the injustice this caused her.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms D, complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application since 2011. She said it failed to: properly assess her housing needs and do enough to move her to a suitable accommodation; consider and understand her needs before it offered viewings; and investigate her complaint properly, and it ignored her request to be part of a review to improve its services.
As a result, Ms D said she experienced distress, uncertainty, and loss of trust in the Council’s ability to meet its duty towards her. She also said she had time and trouble to attend the viewings.
What I have investigated I have investigated Ms D’s complaint from June 2020 which includes how the Council handled her property viewings and its complaints handling.
The final paragraph of this decision set out why I have not investigated some parts of Ms D’s complaint.
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 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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
As part of my investigation, I have: considered Ms D’s complaint and the Council’s responses; discussed the complaint with Ms D; made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided; and considered the relevant law and policy; Ms D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme 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)) In its Housing Allocations Policy, the Council says it will, in the main, allocate property by the use of a choice-based lettings scheme. For the purposes of allocation, applicants are awarded points based on their personal circumstances. This includes additional points for individuals who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
The Policy says the Council will assess mobility needs against agreed London-wide categories, and awards priority for properties which are accessible to the applicant and their household. Each property advertised on its website will be allocated an Accessible Housing Register (AHR) Category.
Housing applicants can ask the Council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
What happened Ms D has several medical conditions which affects her mobility and care needs.
In 2011 Ms D lived in her mother’s home. She told the Council the home was not suitable for her needs, and she wanted to live independently.
The Council offered Ms D temporary accommodation in a supported living accommodation. She said the Council told her it would be for up to two years, and it added her to its Housing Allocations Scheme to bid for suitable properties.
In 2017 the Council reviewed Ms D’s housing application and completed a Health & Disability Assessment. It found her property needs to meet Category E of the Accessible Housing register.
In 2019 Ms D asked the Council to review her housing priority. She provided evidence from her GP on her increased dependence for wheelchair mobility indoors and outdoors.
The Council reviewed Ms D’s priority and again completed a Health & Disability assessment. It allocated her Category C of the Accessible Housing Register. This was because it found she needed a wheelchair accessible property: on ground floor level, or with a lift up to the fourth floor; with additional space to store equipment; with enough space in the bathroom to meet her needs; and within the Borough, or in a nearby Borough to enable her access to her GP and family support.
It also found a Housing Occupational Therapist (OT) should attend any property viewing she may have. This was to discuss the suitability of the property and any adaptations or equipment that may be helpful to her.
In 2020 the Council told Ms D about a new development which was being built in its area. It said there would be accessible properties, which may be suitable to meet her needs.
In early 2021 the Council invited Ms D to view a property in the new development.
Ms D said she could not view the property because the lift in the building was out of order. She also said the council had not arranged for an OT to attend. So, Ms D’s mother viewed the property.
Ms D was not happy with the Council’s handling of her housing application and her viewings of the properties. So, she complained to the Council.
Three weeks later the Council invited Ms D to a viewing of a different property and arranged for its OT to be present. Ms D and the OT found several concerns about the suitability of the property, including: there was no bedroom window, only a door which would cause a security risk for her if kept open during the night; the space in the property was limited which made storing and using Ms D’s equipment difficult or impractical; and Ms D had difficulties with or could not manage the communal door, fire doors and the flat front door. Some adaptations would be needed, including the removal or loosening of the self-closing door devices. However, the OT found it unlikely the landlord would agree to this.
The Council arranged a new viewing of the property in the new development for Ms D. This took place a month later when the lift had been fixed. It also arranged for an OT to be present. However, the property was also not believed to be suitable unless adaptations could be made. This again included changes to the communal and fire doors’ closing devices.
Ms D’s complaint Ms D told the Council it had failed to provide her with suitable accommodation since 2011. She said her current accommodation is unsuitable because: it is in a scheme for people with learning disabilities, which she does not have; the bathroom is not level access and is too small for her to shower. And adaptations are not possible due to walls type; there is not enough space for her to use her medical aids and store equipment. This also means she cannot apply for an electric wheelchair or scooter; and her carer has to sleep on a chair or on the floor due to the limited space available.
She also complained about how it handled the viewings. She said it: had wrongly raised her expectation when it told her she was shortlisted for a property within the new development. However, there had been repeated delays in its completion; when it invited her to a viewing, it had been by text message and with very short notice; and when she attended the viewing, its Officer was not aware of her disabilities, no OT was present, and the lift was out of order.
Ms D asked the Council to review her case and asked for an action plan how it would improve its services for her. She also said she wanted a review of how the Council’s housing department deals with people with similar disabilities, and she wanted to be involved in the process.
In response the Council apologised for its delay in responding to her complaint. It told Ms D: it had placed her in her accommodation in 2011, which she had accepted and was happy with at the time; the new development was allocated Category C of the Accessible Housing Register. It had therefore found it was potentially suitable for her. However, due to COVID-19 there were delays in completing the development; when her first viewing of the new development took place, an OT was not present at the viewing and the lift was not working. It apologised and explained this was because its Housing, Health and Disability Team had not been made aware of the viewing, and it was not aware at the time the lift had broken down; and it had arranged a new viewing for her when the lift was working, and an OT was present. However, the property was not found to be suitable for her as it required major adaptations to meet her needs. This was because the self-closing door devices could not be adequately adjusted for her to manage the doors. Also, it initially believed bathroom adaptations were possible, but it was told during the development that such adaptations would not be allowed.
The Council also told Ms D the other property it invited her to view was not suitable as it would not be possible for her to manage it independently and safely. This was because its OT found the property also had self-closing devices fitted, and there were concerns about the security risks from the bedroom’s external door.
Ms D was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked it to reconsider its view. She said it: wrongly described her case history because it told her in 2011 the accommodation would be temporary for two years. She said this was the reason she had accepted the accommodation; had not apologised for the lift not working at her first viewing, nor that its invite was by text and with short notice; had failed to properly explain why the self-closing door devices could not be adjusted for the new development; should have known the properties were not suitable as her difficulties with managing doors was in her records. She therefore questioned why it offered her the viewings in the first place; failed to respond to her request for service improvements to its service, and for her to be involved in the process; and had responded to her in a patronising manner because it had referred to her as a ‘powerful self-advocate.
In its final response to Ms D, the Council found it had been appropriate to invite her to the viewings. This was because it could not be certain the properties were suitable for her based on the information it held. Its OT was therefore needed for the viewings. It explained it was first when the OT attended, it became clear the door closing devices could not be adjusted. It also acknowledged Ms D felt she could manage the bath in the new development. However, its OT found the adaptations needed could not be done, which included level access to meet her future needs. However, it did apologise for: the delay in responding to her complaint; the text message and short notice invite to her viewing, it found a phone call would have been more appropriate; any incorrect information she may have been given in the past regarding the duration of her current accommodation. However, it explained it cannot normally give timescales for such matters as this is outside the Council’s control; and the comment about her being ‘a powerful self-advocate’. It agreed this should have been worded differently.
Ms D remains unhappy with the Council’s handling of her housing needs and her complaint, so she asked the Ombudsman to consider her concerns.
In response to my enquiries, the Council acknowledged its complaint responses to Ms D did not address her request to be part of improving its services. It said it had sent her an invite to be part of its Resident Reference Group at the time, which is a group designed to explore and recommend service design. However, it has no records of Ms D applying to be part of this.
Analysis Ms D’s housing application As set out in the final paragraph of this decision, Ms D complained about the Council’s failure to provide her with suitable accommodation between 2011 and May 2020. This relates to matters which occurred more than 12 months’ before she brought it to our attention. I have seen no good reason to exercise my discretion and so I cannot therefore consider these matters.
I also note the Council have reviewed Ms D’s housing application in 2019 and 2021. In both reviews her mobility and care needs were considered, and she was allocated Band C of the Accessible Housing Register. If Ms D is not satisfied with the number of points or the Band she has been allocated, she can request for the Council to review its decision. I understand she has not asked it for a review of its decisions.
Ms D’s viewings I understand Ms D was frustrated following her viewings of the two properties. Even more so as the Council told her in 2020, it may have a suitable property for her in the new development. However, I have not found the Council at fault for inviting her to view the properties. This is because: it followed its Policy in assessing Ms D’s housing needs and allocated her to the Accessible Housing Register Category Band C. The two properties it invited her to view were both classified under this Band; and the delay in the completion of the new development was outside the Council’s control due to factors related to COVID19.
I acknowledge Ms D feels the Council should have known more detail about the properties and compared this with its records of her housing needs. However, this is not the Council’s Policy. Once she was allocated her points and Band under its Scheme, it could offer her viewings. It was then for its OT and Ms D to assess the suitability of the potential properties during the viewings.
Once the OT and Ms D viewed the properties, it became clear she needed adaptations internally and to doors throughout the buildings to enable her to access the properties. As the Council did not own the buildings, I cannot fault it for the landlord’s refusal to make the necessary adaptations.
However, the Council were aware of Ms D’s needs for a level access bathroom and the necessary bathroom facilities. Initially the plan for the property in the new development appears to have met her needs. But, during the development, the developer told the Council it had made changes to the bathrooms and major adaptations would not be allowed. Based on the evidence available, the Council failed to update its records to reflect this change. Despite of this, I am not satisfied this caused Ms D an injustice. This is because the OT and Ms D still needed to assess the property to determine the level of adaptations needed.
Although, I have not found fault by the Council for inviting Ms D to view the properties, it was at fault for how it handled its invite for her first viewing. This is because it: should not have texted her with short notice before the viewing. It accepted it should have called her, and apologised; and failed to arrange for an OT to be present at the visit, which meant she was unable to view the property and a second visit had to be arranged.
I found Ms D experienced some distress and time and trouble to attend the first viewing. The Council’s apology was not enough to remedy the injustice it caused. This is because she has additional struggles to attend such viewings and she had to arrange support to be able to do so.
I have not found the Council at fault for failing to ensure the lift was working. This is because it had been told by the landlord it was working prior to the visit. I cannot say if the information were incorrect or if the lift broke down again.
Complaint’s handling The Council agreed it failed to respond to Ms D’s complaint within the timescales set out in its Policy and apologised. It also accepted its response should have been worded differently. I am satisfied this was enough to remedy the limited distress this may have caused her.
The Council also acknowledged it had not responded to Ms D’s requests to involved in a service improvement process. However, it explained it had offered her to take part in a similar initiative separately.
I acknowledge Ms D was frustrated with the lack of progress in her housing application. However, I have not found fault by the Council which would require a review of its Housing Allocations Scheme, nor how it communicates with individuals. I therefore found the Council’s offer for Ms D to apply to take part in its Residential Reference Group to be an appropriate way to enable her to raise her views.
Agreed action
To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Ms D, the Council should, within one month of the final decision: Apologise in writing and pay Ms D £100 to acknowledge the distress, and time and trouble she experienced because of the Council’s failure to ensure her viewing of the property could go ahead as agreed.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council on the substantial matters of the complaint. However, there was fault in in how it handled Ms D’s property viewing and for minor delays in its complaints handling, which cause her some injustice.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I have not investigated Ms D’s complaint about the Council’s handling or failure to provide her with suitable accommodation between 2011 and May 2020. This is because this matter is late. I have seen no good reason which would allow me to exercise my discretion to consider this part of her complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman