Summary: The Council failed to properly consider Mr B’s request for his application to be updated in relation to his mobility needs. It also failed to consider the evidence he submitted to support his request. As a result, Mr B remained living in unsuitable accommodation for around three months. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr B, and take action to prevent similar failings.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council failed to properly consider evidence he submitted to show that he could manage stairs and did not need a single level property. As a result, the Council considered only a single level property would be suitable for Mr B’s needs and refused to offer him the tenancy of properties with stairs, despite him being in the highest bidding position.
2. Mr B says that he remained living in unsuitable accommodation because of failings by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing Allocations

6. The Council’s housing allocations scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the Housing Register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
7. The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority). This priority is the first factor the Council uses to allocate a property.
8. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. Housing applicants can bid on available properties.
9. After each bidding cycles close, the Council completes a shortlist of applicants who have bid for each property. The shortlist identifies the order of applicants based on who is in the highest band with the earliest award and/or registration date. This list is used to offer the property to the applicant with the highest priority according to the allocation scheme.
10. Properties are allocated to applicants who need that size and type of property. Properties with adaptations are allocated to applicants with a disability. If an applicant requires adaptations and bids for a standard unadapted property, it should be suitable for their needs or suitable to be adapted.

Background and summary of key events

11. Mr B and his partner joined the housing register in November 2018. They submitted evidence to the Council to show that they had been the victims of hate crimes and it was not safe for them to remain in their accommodation. In August 2019, the Council decided to place them in Band 1, as they had an exceptional need to move.
12. In April 2020, Mr B was assessed by the Council’s Occupational Therapy team. The Occupational Therapist (OT) decided that Mr B needed a property with level internal access and level or ramped external access, along with a level access shower facility. The Council then awarded Band 1 on mobility grounds, with a need for a one-bedroom property.
13. Mr B and his partner requested a review of the decision because they considered they needed a larger property. They provided medical evidence to show that they needed a property with three bedrooms; one for Mr B, one for his partner, and one for a carer. After considering the evidence, the Council increased their bedroom need to three bedrooms.
14. Mr B and his partner were in one of the top bidding positions for several three-bedroom houses in October and November 2020. Mr B’s partner contacted the Council to query why they had not been shortlisted for any of the properties.
15. A senior housing officer looked into the case. He noted that a house would not be suitable for Mr B and his partner because the OT had advised that Mr B needed a property with a level internal layout.
16. Mr B requested another OT assessment which was carried out in November 2020. He told the OT that his mobility had improved, and he could manage a property with stairs.
17. On 12 January 2021, Mr B submitted an NHS OT report to the Council which stated that he could manage stairs with supervision. In subsequent emails, he said that he had had a Council OT assessment and had explained that he could climb stairs and did not need a property with a level internal layout. He asked for his application to be updated with the correct recommendations.
18. The Council OT had not seen the NHS OT report when she completed her report on 21 January 2021. She recommended that Mr B be offered a single level property with level access shower and level external access.
19. Mr B and his partner were in the highest bidding position for several properties they bid on in January and February 2021. The Council decided they were not suitable because they were houses and therefore not on one level.
20. The Council offered Mr B and his partner a property in March 2021, but Mr B considered it to be unsuitable. He said that the toilet was not big enough for a disabled person and he would have difficulty accessing the property because of the external steps.
21. Mr B and his partner were in the highest bidding position for a house in August 2021. After waiting around six weeks for a viewing to be arranged, the Council withdrew the offer because it did not consider the property was suitable for them.
22. Mr B and his partner complained to the Council about it. They said that Mr B could manage stairs and they had already provided medical evidence of this to the Council.
23. In the Council’s response, it explained that applicants who require adapted properties can only bid on standard properties if they are suitable for adaptation. It said that it had mistakenly told Mr B and his partner that the property was suitable for adaptation when it was not. It apologised for the oversight. It also advised Mr B to request another OT assessment if he no longer required an adapted property.
24. Mr B and his partner separated in around October 2021.
25. The Council offered them another property, but it was withdrawn when Mr B’s partner was removed from the application. The property had three bedrooms and Mr B no longer needed a three-bedroom property.
26. Mr B was in the highest bidding position for two houses he bid on in December 2021. The Council did not shortlist Mr B for the properties because it did not consider they were suitable for his mobility needs.
27. Mr B then complained to the Council that it had not offered one of the properties to him. He said that he had provided medical evidence to show that he could manage stairs and the only adaptations he needed were handrails. He provided another copy of the NHS OT report from January 2021 and a supporting letter from his OT which had been written that day. It included extracts from his medical notes which showed that in January 2021, the OT recorded that he was managing the stairs safely and independently.
28. In the Council’s response, it advised Mr B that if he did not want his mobility recommendation applied to his application, he could make a formal request for it to be removed. It warned that if this change was applied, he would no longer be able to bid on adapted properties.
29. Mr B made a further complaint to the Council. He said that the Council had overlooked the medical evidence he had previously provided, and he confirmed that he wanted the mobility award removed. He said that the Council should offer him the tenancy of one of the properties he had already bid on because he was in the highest bidding position, and it was suitable for his needs.
30. In the Council’s final response, it said that it could not offer the property to him because it had been offered to someone else.
31. Mr B was in the highest bidding position for a two-bedroom house he bid on in February 2022. He was offered the tenancy and moved in during April.

Analysis

32. The Council failed to properly consider the request Mr B made in January 2021 for his application to be updated to show that he could manage stairs and did not need a property with a level internal layout. It also failed to consider the NHS OT report when it was submitted in January 2021. This was fault.
33. The Council should have advised Mr B that he could have the mobility award removed. If it had done so, I consider it likely that the mobility award would have been removed in March 2021. The Council also missed the opportunity to tell Mr B that he could have the mobility award removed when he complained about it in September 2021.
34. I have considered whether Mr B would have been offered a property sooner if the mobility award had been removed in March 2021. Mr B was shortlisted for a property in June 2021, but it was offered to the applicant in the highest bidding position. Mr B was also shortlisted for a property in August 2021, but it is unlikely to have been suitable. This is because it did not have level external access, and this was one of the reasons Mr B turned down a property in March 2021.
35. If there had been no fault by the Council, I consider Mr B would have been offered one of the properties he bid on in December 2021. Mr B was offered a suitable property which he bid on in February 2022, around three months later. I consider Mr B remained living in unsuitable accommodation for around three months because of the fault identified in this case.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. Within four weeks, the Council will:
• Apologise for the failings identified.
• Make a payment of £250 to recognise Mr B’s distress and the time and trouble he has been put to pursuing his complaint.
• Make a payment of £600 to recognise the three months he was living in unsuitable accommodation due to the failings identified.
37. Within eight weeks, the Council will:
• Ensure its officers are aware that mobility awards can be removed at an applicant’s request without having another OT assessment.
• Ensure that applicants are provided with the OT’s recommendations following a mobility assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr B. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman