Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to allocate her suitable accommodation for her disability. During the period we are investigating the Council was not at fault. The action the Council took to assist Ms X into alternative accommodation was in line with its allocations policy and it assessed and considered her needs.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to allocate her suitable accommodation for her disability. She said the unsuitability of the property made caring for her young child more challenging and caused her distress.

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. 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)
4. 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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. In this case, Ms X moved into the property before she had a child in late 2019 but did not complain to the Council about the unsuitability of the accommodation until January 2022. Ms X then did not bring her complaint to the Ombudsman until December 2022. No reason was provided for not raising the complaint sooner. Therefore, although I refer to earlier events as background, I have only investigated the Council’s actions during the twelve months prior to Ms X complaining to the Ombudsman. This covers December 2021 to December 2022.
6. 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

7. I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council.
8. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
9. I considered our Guidance on Remedies
10. I considered comments made by Ms X and the Council on a draft decision before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Housing allocations

11. 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))

Reasonable preference

12. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

The London Borough of Croydon’s Allocations Policy (2019)

13. The Council’s allocations policy says that Band 1 is for people with an urgent priority for allocation, for example, people with severe medical or disability problems which make it difficult for them to manage in their homes. It is the highest priority band on the Council’s housing register.
14. The policy says applicants on the Council’s housing register can apply through the ‘Choice-based lettings system’ for homes that are provided by the Council and partner housing association landlords.
15. This is a method of letting homes by advertising them so that applicants can ‘bid’ for them. It says some homes will be let through a direct offers process but most of the homes provided by the Council are let through the bidding process.

Housing supply

16. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

What happened

Background

17. Ms X has several medical conditions which significantly affect her mobility and balance. Her conditions include a degenerative condition that will affect her needs differently over time.
18. During the period I am investigating, Ms X lived in a housing association property – Property A - which was designed for a single person, as she originally moved there before she became pregnant. However Ms X continued to live there after she had a baby.
19. Ms X struggled to manoeuvre around Property A and make full use of the bathroom and kitchen, due to her disability and the size of the property when sharing with a child.
20. The most recent occupational therapy assessment of Property A was completed in June 2021. This identified that many adaptations needed to be made to the home but could not be made in the current accommodation.
21. Instead, the occupational therapist recommended Ms X be placed in the highest priority band on the Council’s housing register – Band 1 – and that she bid for alternative properties. They recommended other adaptations to help Ms X manage in her home in the meantime.
22. The Council changed Ms X’s banding to reflect the occupational therapist’s recommendations and Ms X began bidding for alternative properties using her new banding from June 2021 onwards. However the types of properties that Ms X needed were in short supply.
23. Some smaller adaptations such as shower rails and a change of flooring were made to her then home. However these did not resolve Ms X’s main problem which was that she could not easily move around all the rooms in her home, due to the size and layout and her increased risk of falls due to her disability.

Events covered by my investigation

24. In January 2022 Ms X complained to the Council regarding her housing. She said despite being in Band 1 and bidding for several months, she was struggling to find a suitable property.
25. The Council responded to her complaint to say that a council officer could help her request a reassessment of her housing need based on her medical condition if required.
26. Ms X responded to this on 1 February 2022 and said this did not address her complaint. The Council replied at Stage 2 of its complaints process and addressed some other complaints she had made (which I have not investigated here) but did not respond to the housing element of her complaint.
27. In the coming months, Ms X successfully matched with four properties through the bidding process. Each time Ms X viewed a property, she did so with an occupational therapist to see whether it would be suitable for her needs.
28. Several of the properties were suitable but only with adaptations. Ms X said that she would not want to move into some of the properties before the Council made these adaptations, as some of the works needed related to her being able to carry out personal care independently.
29. The Council told her in some cases she would need to move into the properties before it could carry out any adaptations. The Council offered interim options to assist with these tasks while adaptations were ongoing, such as a bath rail and her carers assisting her in and out of the bath.
30. In the case of one property Ms X raised concerns that she could not enter the building due to the weight of the front door. The case notes show that the Council discussed adding a fob system to the door. However this property was then withdrawn by the housing association.
31. Ms X moved into the fourth property she was matched with.
32. Ms X was made no direct offers of properties by the Council during this time.

My findings

33. During the period I have investigated, Ms X bid for several months for properties on the Council’s housing register. She was in the Council’s highest priority band on the housing register.
34. Ms X matched with several properties, and after viewing them with an occupational therapist, the occupational therapist found they would be suitable with adaptations. The Council informed Ms X she would have to move into these properties before adaptations could be carried out.
35. The Council promptly assessed Ms X’s needs with regards to these properties. Where adaptations were needed, the Council suggested ways Ms X’s needs could be met temporarily while the necessary adaptations were being made. This is action we would expect to see. The Council was not at fault.
36. The Council did not make Ms X a direct offer of an alternative property during this time. Instead after several months of bidding with Band 1 status, Ms X was ultimately matched with a property that she moved into. The bidding process being used primarily instead of direct offers was in line with the Council’s allocations policy and in this case did not lead to a significant delay in Ms X being rehoused. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman