The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms B complained the Council had not considered properly her request for rehousing on medical grounds. She considers she needs a two-bedroom property and needs to move closer to family members who can provide support. There was fault in how the Council responded to Ms B’s complaint which caused some injustice to her.
The complaint
I call the complainant Ms B. She complained the Council had not considered properly her request for rehousing on medical grounds. She considers she needs a two-bedroom property and needs to move closer to family members who can provide support.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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
I considered the complaint and documents provided by Ms B and spoke to her I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Ms B and the Council and considered their comments.
What I found
What happened Ms B lives in a one-bedroom property. She has various medical conditions. One of her conditions means she sleep-walks. Medical professionals involved with her care have reported on the difficulties she faces living alone because of those conditions and in particular the sleep-walking. Ms B is worried she could be a danger to herself and others.
Ms B raised this with the Council over the last few years. The Council considered the information she provided and referred it to its medical advisers. The last time was in July 2020. The advice received referred to Ms B’s medical conditions and her sleep-walking and to the comments of the medical professionals involved in her care. The advice was that her needs could be met by visiting carers. The Council considered that advice and the information submitted by Ms B and concluded she did not need an extra bedroom.
Ms B complained about the decision. The Council responded and said Ms B could have an adult social care assessment of her needs but did not alter her housing priority.
Analysis Ms B complained the Council had not considered her circumstances and the medical information she had supplied. The Council knows of and accepts Ms B’s medical conditions and the comments made by the medical professionals about the impact they have on her. That is reflected in the comments of the medical adviser. But it is not the case that those medical conditions, no matter how severe, mean Ms B should be awarded a higher priority for housing or the need for an extra bedroom automatically. The Council must consider how her housing affects her medical conditions.
The key issue for Ms B relates to her sleep-walking. She considers the only way she can be certain of being safe is if someone is in her home overnight with her. On this point the Council said that if an overnight carer was needed then they would need to be awake and so would be in another room in the property; it would not mean that another bedroom was required. The Council had not provided this explanation in its responses to Ms B.
It is not for the Council in its housing role to assess Ms B’s care needs. The Council did advise Ms B she could seek an assessment of her care needs. I understand that was done and some daytime support was provided for a short period of time. If Ms B considers the Council has not properly considered her care needs then she can make a complaint about that.
The Council considered Ms B’s housing needs properly and I cannot, therefore, question the decision it reached on her housing priority and bedroom need. However, it should have provided a clearer explanation of why it considered she did not need an extra bedroom. The Council offered to pay £50 to Ms B in recognition of this.
Agreed action
Within one month of the final decision the Council will apologise to Ms B for the lack of a clear explanation in its responses to her and pay her £50.
Final decision
There was fault in how the Council responded to Ms B’s complaint which caused some injustice to her.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman