Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council has handled her housing application. She also complains about the Council’s poor communication and said it had failed to properly consider her and her mother, Ms Z’s medical information. We find the Council was at fault. This caused them significant distress. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains about how the Council has handled her housing application. She also complains about the Council’s poor communication and said it has failed to properly consider her and her mothers’ medical information.
2. Miss X said her, and her mother have been discriminated against 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 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)
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 spoke with Miss X about her complaint. I considered all the information provided by Miss X and the Council.
6. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s complaints policy

7. The Council aims to acknowledge a complaint within five working days. Matters should then be resolved locally by the service area as soon as possible and within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. For complex cases, this may be extended for up to a further 10 working days. If the matter cannot be resolved within the maximum timescale of 20 working days, the Council will contact the complainant.

Background

8. Miss X lived in a one-bedroom council flat with her mother, Ms Z. There had been a number of harassment related issues with a neighbour who moved into the property in 2018. The outcome was that Miss X and Ms Z would need to look for relocation as there was no practical way their current living accommodation could be improved.

Summary of the key events

9. Miss X provided a GP letter in 2021 which stated they supported a move to a self-contained property with a private garden.
10. Miss X provided the Council with a letter from the mental health nurse in December 2022. They supported a move to a self-contained property.
11. In March 2023, Miss X provided the Council with a GP letter stating they were in support of Miss X and Ms Z moving to a two-bedroom property with a private garden.
12. In April 2023, Miss X provided the Council with letters from the social worker, GP, mental health link worker and clinical psychiatrist. They were in support of Miss X and Ms Z moving to a self-contained two-bed property.
13. In the same month, the Council told Miss X her and Ms Z had the highest level of priority points available. But it said it did not have available stock in the area specified to meet their medical needs, a ground floor property.
14. In May 2023, Miss X told the Council the last time it had verified any of her medical letters was in September 2022. But the Council said it had all the information it needed to support a transfer. It said Miss X and Ms Z had the highest level of priority and said it no longer needed her to provide documents.
15. The Council said due to the desired area Miss X was seeking, it was taking longer than expected to find a suitable two-bed property.
16. The Council offered Miss X and Ms Z a two-bed property in one of their requested areas. But they declined this offer and said it was unsuitable as there was no private garden which they said was a medical recommendation.
17. Miss X’s advocate asked the Council in August 2023 to offer Miss X and Ms Z a property with a garden and said it had been over a month since the last offer.
18. The Council said its housing medical officer had not recommended that a garden was essential. It said the application was set up for an offer of a two-bed property. It said when a suitable property become available, an offer would be made.
19. Miss X sent in a GP letter in November 2023. This noted the GP was in support of a move to a two-bed property with a garden.
20. The Council’s medical officer completed an assessment in the same month. They considered the medical information and said:
• there had been harassment from the neighbour since 2018;
• after an application, the family were given the highest health priority. This was in acknowledgment of the danger, threat to life and emotional distress;
• medical recommendations were for any type of ground floor accommodation;
• the current shared garden would not be an issue if there were no anti-social behavioural (ASB) issues with the neighbour;
• Miss X and Ms Z had lived at the property for over 35 years and the request for a move only came about because of the neighbour;
• an offer of accommodation was made in June 2021 which was a two-bed property;
• at the time of the offer in 2021, the ASB was ongoing and only recently resolved in 2023 with the perpetrator having left the property;
• from the 17 June 2021 to date the Council has received several reports from supporters of the family moving. But noted the family had refused offers due to not having their own garden;
• the family had declined a quick solution whilst being intimidated. But now the threat had gone, they were able to wait for the property they would prefer; and
• housing will continue to look for properties, but they may not have their own private garden.
21. The Council’s medical officer completed a further assessment in February 2023. This reiterated their previous response and said the Council would continue to look for properties but said they may not have their own private garden.
22. The Council offered Miss X and Ms Z a property in April 2024 which they accepted. This was a two-bed property with a garden.

Complaint to the Council

23. Miss X complained to the Council in May 2022 about the conduct of their housing officer. She said the housing officer has not assisted or supported them. She also said she felt the housing officer was intentionally and maliciously preventing them from being offered a suitable transfer on medical grounds.
24. The Council responded in December 2023. It said:
• it received Miss X’s complaint from the housing ombudsman on the 25 November 2023;
• it was satisfied the housing officer had worked with Miss X for nearly 18 months and provided the appropriate support;
• the housing officer is not involved in the transfer and allocation process and had no influence over decisions made; and
• the Council had made two previous offers of accommodation that Miss X had declined.

Analysis- was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

25. There are medical letters from 2021-2023 supporting a move for Miss X and Ms Z. Some of the letters supported a move to a property with a private garden based on Miss X and Ms Z’s medical needs.
26. There is a significant delay in the Council’s medical officer completing an assessment which was done in November 2023. This is fault. I note the Council’s comments that the family had been awarded the highest priority so an assessment would not change this. But the outcome of the assessment could have had an impact on the types of properties offered to Miss X and Ms Z.
27. As stated in paragraph 25, some of the letters provided supported a move to a property with a private garden based on Miss X and Ms Z’s medical needs. The Council’s medical officer stated they had considered the letters provided. But the assessment fails to explain why it decided a private garden was not essential to their medical needs.
28. There is evidence of further fault. The assessment noted that the neighbour had left the property and the threat had therefore gone. But Miss X told us the neighbour still lived at the property. We asked the Council to evidence how it came to this decision.
29. It said Miss X had said the neighbour was subletting the property and their occupants were parking their motorbike in the shared driveway. The Council also said it believed the neighbour may have temporarily moved out but then returned. But it said it was unable to evidence this. The Council should have ensured it had strong evidence to support the situation had changed before stating the threat was no longer there.
30. Miss X initially complained to the Council in May 2022, and she has sent us evidence of this. The email was sent to various email addresses within the Council. Miss X also told the Council in February 2023 that she never had a response to this complaint or another complaint she made in November 2022.
31. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in December 2023. It said it received her complaint from the housing ombudsman in November 2023. But as stated in paragraph 30, there is evidence Miss X raised this with the Council. Therefore, the significant delay in responding to the complaint and further email is fault.
32. Miss X said the Council has discriminated against her and Ms Z. Whilst I acknowledge the faults identified have caused significant distress to Miss X and Ms Z, I have seen no evidence of discrimination.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. To address the injustice caused by fault, within one month of my final decision the Council has agreed to:
• write to Miss X and Ms Z with an apology that takes account of our published guidance on remedies and accepts the findings of this investigation;
• pay Miss X £400 for the avoidable distress, time and trouble caused by the Council’s actions; and
• pay Ms Z £200 to acknowledge the distress caused to her by the fault identified in this statement.
34. Within two months the Council should issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure they are aware of the timescales set out in its complaint’s policy.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

36. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman