London Borough of Brent

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: The Council was at fault because it failed to consider Miss X for a direct offer of a wheelchair-accessible property. Also, the Council did not do what it said it would. These faults caused Miss X uncertainty, distress and frustration. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Miss X to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

Mr L complained on behalf of his mother, Miss X, that the Council should award her higher priority banding because her housing is medically unsuitable for her. Mr L also complained about the way the Council handled Miss X’s complaint.

Mr L said Miss X is a wheelchair user and her home is not wheelchair accessible. He said she struggles to leave or access her home. This meant she missed important medical appointments, and it impacted her health. Mr L said Miss X has had to crawl up the stairs to get home which is humiliating. Mr L said Miss X fears she will have no way to escape if there is a fire. Mr L said this caused Miss X stress, fear, trauma and anxiety.

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 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) 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) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.

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) We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)

What I have and have not investigated As I have said above, we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Mr L complained to us in October 2025 about events going back to May 2024, more than 12 months earlier.

I have considered Mr L’s reasons that neither he nor Miss X complained to us earlier. I am satisfied there are good reasons for us to exercise our discretion and look back to the Council’s decision on Miss X’s housing application in May 2024.

How I considered this complaint

Miss X gave written consent for Mr L to represent this complaint on her behalf. I therefore consider Mr L is a suitable person to represent this complaint on Miss X’s behalf.

I considered the information and documents provided by Mr L and the Council. I spoke to Mr L about Miss X’s complaint. Mr L and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.

I considered the relevant Council policies, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

What I found

What should have happened The Council’s housing policy The Council’s housing allocations policy says it can make an offer of a “direct let”, where the Council directly offers a property to an applicant, and they do not have to bid for it.

The policy says applicants may qualify for a direct offer of accommodation if they need to move urgently because of an emergency medical or welfare need. The policy says this can only happen if its Allocations Panel approves it.

The Council’s complaints procedure The Council’s complaints procedure says it will acknowledge a complaint within five working days. The procedure says the Council will respond to a complaint at the first stage (stage one) within ten working days of its acknowledgement. This can be extended by up to an additional ten working days.

The procedure says the Council will acknowledge a request for the Council to address a complaint at the second stage (stage two) within five working days. The procedure says the Council will then respond within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. This can be extended by up to an additional 20 working days.

What happened Miss X has lived in a property for about ten years. Miss X uses a wheelchair. In 2024, she applied to the Council for housing. She told the Council her accommodation was medically unsuitable because it was not wheelchair accessible. She explained the difficulties she had with her accommodation.

The Council recognised the issues with Miss X’s current housing and awarded her medical priority band B in May 2024. This meant she could bid for properties.

In June 2025, Miss X complained to the Council that her accommodation was not wheelchair accessible.

The Council agreed it was necessary for Miss X to be transferred to suitable accommodation urgently. The Council said it had asked Miss X’s caseworker to ensure her medical details were up to date. It said it had also asked the caseworker to liaise with the Council’s medical officer about any revised recommendations.

Mr L then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis Wheelchair-accessible accommodation The Council accepted in its complaint response that Miss X’s current accommodation is unsuitable for her because it is not wheelchair accessible.

The Council told the Ombudsman it should have brought Miss X’s case to its Allocations Panel for a direct offer of suitable accommodation. The Council said it has recently done this, and it has now put Miss X on its direct offer list.

Miss X’s medical circumstances have not changed since the Council made its decision on her housing application in May 2024. I therefore find the Council could have made its decision to take Miss X’s case to its Allocations Panel earlier than it did. This is fault.

I find this fault caused Miss X uncertainty, distress and frustration, which are injustice.

In addition to this, the Council’s stage two complaint response said it had asked Miss X’s case worker to ensure her medical details were up to date. It also said it had asked the case worker to liaise with the Council’s medical officer, as necessary, about any revised recommendations.

The Council told the Ombudsman it cannot find evidence that this was done. And without evidence, I cannot say this was done. This is fault.

This fault caused Miss X frustration, distress and uncertainty (injustice) because the Council did not do what it said it would do.

Complaint handling Mr L complained about the way the Council handled Miss X’s complaint. He said the Council delayed sending its responses, passed the complaint between officers, and gave false information.

Regarding delays, on the last day the Council was meant to send its stage one response it told Miss X the response would be delayed by a few working days.

The Council’s complaints procedure allows the Council to extend its deadline at stage one by up to an additional ten working days. I find the Council sent its stage one response within those additional ten working days, and it told Miss X about it. This was in line with its complaints procedure. For this reason, I do not find fault.

Regarding the stage two response, the Council told Miss X when it would respond by (which was within the 20 working days set out in its procedure). A few days before this date, the Council told Miss X it would extend the deadline by under 20 working days. It sent its stage two response within the further 20 working days the procedure allows, but one day later than it said it would.

The Council’s complaints procedure allows the Council to extend its deadline at stage two by up to an additional 20 working days. I find the Council sent its stage two response within those additional 20 working days, and it told Miss X about it. This was in line with its complaints procedure. I do not consider a delay of one day to be fault. For these reasons, I do not find fault.

Regarding the complaint being passed between officers, Mr L refers to the Council initially assigning the complaint to one head of service but then passing it to another head of service. In the Council’s complaint response, the Council said this is what happened. This is not significant enough to be fault.

Regarding false information, Mr L said the Council told Miss X on the phone that she was in secure permanent accommodation, not temporary accommodation. Mr L said this is not true.

The Council addressed this in its complaint response. It said there was some confusion regarding Miss X’s tenancy, but it would contact the housing association to resolve it.

I do not agree that the Council gave false information. It is clear there has been some confusion about Miss X’s tenancy status. But that does not mean the Council gave false information. I do not find fault.

Action

Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X in writing for the uncertainty, distress and frustration caused by the faults.

We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance when making this apology.

Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment of £500 to Miss X. In arriving at this figure, I considered our published guidance on remedies, the length of time involved, the level of distress caused, and Miss X’s vulnerability. I found the maximum payment for uncertainty and frustration (£500) was appropriate and proportionate for the level of injustice caused.

The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

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

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman