Summary: There was fault by the Council, because it did not properly explain its decision to keep the complainant in the lowest priority band of the housing register, despite it appearing he should qualify for a higher band. There is no evidence this had any substantive impact on the complainant’s position, but caused some frustration, for which the Council has agreed to apologise. There is no evidence of fault in the other aspects of this complaint, which concern general delays in rehousing the complainant, officer professionalism and the Council’s level of contact with him.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr B.
2. Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of his housing case. In particular, he says:

• there has been a lack of communication from the Council’s housing team;
• that officers have behaved unprofessionally, including failing to complete actions they had agreed to;
• the Council has provided him with inaccurate and conflicting information regarding his housing application;
• there has been delay by the Council in processing his application; and
• the Council has not provided him with adequate support and guidance during the process.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I reviewed the Council’s correspondence with Mr B and other relevant parties, its case notes, and the local housing allocation scheme.
8. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

9. In April 2024 we upheld a previous complaint from Mr B. That complaint was made against Surrey County Council, but covered closely related matters up to September 2023.
10. The county council has a slightly different role in this matter to the Council. However, having reviewed our previous decision, I am satisfied there is nothing of significance to be gained by revisiting the events prior to September 2023. This is as especially as, due to the time restriction on our jurisdiction explained at paragraph 6, I would not be able to investigate anything which happened before July 2023 anyway.
11. My investigation will therefore explore matters which happened after September 2023, and up to when Mr B submitted his more recent complaint. However, I will refer to events from outside this time period, where it is necessary for context.
12. The following will provide a summary of the background to this complaint. It is not intended to be an exhaustive chronology, and so will not explain every detail of what happened.
13. Mr B has a range of significant physical disabilities and uses a wheelchair. In 2018, Mr B underwent an assessment by an occupational therapist (OT), which explained he needed a particular type of adapted property to help him live independently. The Council then allocated Mr B a two-bedroom bungalow, and, after he moved in with his partner and child, it funded several adaptations to the property.
14. In late 2022 and early 2023 Mr B contacted the Council and OT to explain he now needed an adapted three-bedroom property. Mr B successfully applied to rejoin the housing register at this time. The OT told the Council it was not necessary to re-assess Mr B, as the relevant adaptations had not changed, but he now needed a larger property as his partner was pregnant again; and because Mr B had to sleep in a separate bedroom from his partner, due to his use of a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine to relieve sleep apnoea.
15. After some discussion the Council decided it should carry out a new OT assessment of Mr B, which was eventually completed on 1 September. The OT’s report explained the difficulties Mr B had with accessing his bed in the current property, and recommended he move either to another two-bedroom property, with sufficient space to accommodate two single beds in his bedroom to facilitate access, or to a three-bedroom property to allow Mr B to have his own room. The report also suggested Mr B’s needs could be met by extending his current property.
16. Immediately after receiving the OT report, the Council contacted Mr B’s landlord (a housing association) to enquire whether it would permit the property to be extended, and whether it would be prepared to make a financial contribution. The housing association replied on 13 September to confirm it would approve, in principle, an extension to the property, but that it could not contribute to the costs.
17. The Council emailed Mr B on 14 September to explain this, and that it would consider whether it could exceed the normal £30,000 limit for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) to fund the work.
18. On 15 September, the Council commissioned an architect to assess the feasibility of an extension. The architect visited on 27 September.
19. In November and December there was a series of correspondence between the Council, OT, architect and Mr B, discussing the practicalities of extending the property, for which the architect had drawn up two different plans. Mr B began to express doubts about the financial viability of the proposal, and asked the Council to make a final decision on it, with the expectation it would agree to start identifying an alternative property for him instead.
20. On 3 January 2024 Mr B emailed the Council. He said he had originally supported the idea of extending his current property, in the belief it would be a quick solution, but no longer wished the pursue this and asked the Council to rehouse him. Mr B said a seemingly suitable three-bedroom property was being advertised on the Council’s housing portal and asked it to arrange a viewing for him and the OT.
21. On 5 January the Council replied. It said it could not permit Mr B to bid on three-bedroom properties, because he qualified for a two-bedroom property under the Council’s allocation scheme; and because of the possibility of extending the current property, although it acknowledged Mr B did not wish to pursue this. The Council also explained it had reviewed Mr B’s priority on the housing register and decided to keep him in band 4 (which is for applicants who are suitably housed but wish to move), although it would consider giving him priority over other applicants if a suitable property became available.
22. Through January Mr B exchanged several emails with the Council, including about another three-bedroom property he wished to view. The Council explained this property had been offered to another applicant. Mr B then sent an abusive email to the Council, and in response the Council warned him it would consider restricting his access to the service if he continued to do this.
23. On 26 January the Council emailed Mr B to say it had reviewed his priority again. It explained it had now established the proposed extension would significantly exceed the £30,000 DFG limit, but it was exploring the possibility Surrey County Council might be able to contribute. It noted again Mr B was no longer interested in an extension, but said it must show it had properly considered all options.
24. The Council said Mr B would therefore remain in band 4, but it would consider making a direct offer to him if a suitable property – which was either already adapted, or could be adapted at less cost than his current property – became available.
25. On 9 February, after a further reassessment, the Council decided to move Mr B into band 1 (which is for applicants with a critical need to move home). It explained he could bid on two-bedroom properties, although the Council would consider making a direct offer of a three-bedroom property, if one became available which was already partly adapted, and had the scope to accommodate the remainder of his required adaptations.
26. Between February and May the Council arranged for Mr B’s OT to view two three-bedroom properties, but she concluded that neither could be viably adapted for him. During this time Mr B suggested another three-bedroom property which had become available, but the Council said it would not consider him for this because it had no adaptations in place.
27. In May Mr B enquired about the possibility of applying to join the housing register in a neighbouring authority’s area. The Council explained he may be able to do this with a letter of support, which it later gave him.
28. On 4 June Mr B submitted a formal stage 1 complaint to the Council. He said:

• since his initial contact with the Council in December 2022, there had been a consistent lack of communication by the Council, with minimal, delayed or unhelpful responses. He also complained the Council had inappropriately restricted his communication when he raised a grievance about this;
• there had been unprofessional behaviour from the two council officers he had mainly dealt with. He said they had dismissed his concerns and cut off contact with him, failed to complete tasks they had agreed to, and that one officer had said he enjoyed being intentionally difficult;
• the Council had provided inaccurate and inconsistent information to him;
• there had been a significantly delay in resolving his housing situation; and
• he had received inadequate support and guidance from the Council, with his requests for assistance being ignored or not properly addressed.

29. Mr B asked the Council to review and expedite his case, apologise to him, implement improvements to its service, and to provide him with regular updates on his case.
30. The Council responded on 14 June. It said:

• its records showed it had consistently responded to his emails and phone calls, despite there having been a considerable volume. The Council also noted it had attended several meetings with Mr B and carried out several assessments of his housing need. The Council said it had not implemented any restrictions on Mr B’s contact, although it had warned him it might do this if the tone of his correspondence continued to be inappropriate;
• officers had refuted his allegations about their conduct. The Council noted Mr B said he had recordings of conversations and invited him to submit them as evidence to support this part of his complaint;
• there was no evidence in the Council’s records that Mr B had received inaccurate or conflicting information;
• the Council had assessed Mr B as having a two-bedroom need, although it recognised Mr B’s bedroom needed to be of adequate size to meet his needs. Upon receiving the OT report in September 2023 the Council had made prompt enquiries with the housing association to determine if extending the property was viable; and it had informed Mr B of the housing association’s response on the same day it received it. The Council denied it had resisted moving Mr B into band 1, noting there had been a meeting on 18 October, during which it was agreed the Council would explore the possibility of extending the property. The Council said it had agreed with the OT this was the most effective way of addressing Mr B’s needs; and
• the Council had maintained an appropriate level of contact with Mr B throughout. At no point had any other service indicated to the Council it was not meeting Mr B’s needs.

31. The Council noted Mr B was already in the highest band of the allocation scheme, and explained the reason it had been unable yet to secure an alternative property for him was because of a lack of availability. It declined to apologise to Mr B because it considered its communication with him had been punctual, professional and accurate. The Council also noted Mr B had access to live information about available properties through its portal.
32. Mr B submitted a stage 2 complaint on 15 June. He reiterated his original complaint, providing more detail about incidents he considered showed unprofessional behaviour by officers, and elaborated on the impact the delay in the process had had on him. However, when the Council responded on 17 July, it declined to investigate further, as it considered its original response to have been adequate, and signposted Mr B to the Ombudsman if he wished to pursue his complaint further.
33. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman on the same day.

Back to top

Legislative background

34. 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))
35. 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))

36. Disabled facilities grants (DFGs) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.
37. The maximum grant payable by a council is £30,000. A council can award other discretionary help if it thinks it is necessary.

Back to top

Analysis

38. I will address each point of Mr B’s complaint separately and in turn.
39. First, I will explain that the Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made decisions in the performance of their administrative functions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or not properly explained a decision it has made. We call this ‘fault’ and, where we find it, we can consider the consequence of the fault and ask the council to remedy this.
40. However, we do not provide a right of appeal against council decisions, and we cannot make decisions on a council’s behalf. If a council has made its decision without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if a complainant feels strongly it is wrong. We do not uphold complaints simply because a person believes a council should have done something different.
41. I will refer to this principle where it is relevant to my analysis of Mr B’s complaint.

There has been a lack of communication from the Council’s housing team

42. Mr B complains the Council has not been adequately responsive to his communications. In particular, he says the responses have been delayed and/or unhelpful. He also says the Council wrongly restricted his communications when he sought to complain about this.
43. In response to my enquiries, the Council has provided me with a significant volume of email exchanges between it and Mr B, covering the period January 2023 to date. Its case notes from the same period also document a number of phone calls it has had with Mr B during this time.
44. I cannot practically analyse and document each contact in detail to determine whether Mr B received an adequate and timely response. However, having reviewed the whole set of documents, I cannot see any evidence to support Mr B’s complaint that there has been a general lack of communication, or that the Council’s responses to his emails have been inadequate in scope or detail. I note, also, there have been several meetings between Mr B and the Council, which is not a normal or common part of the process for cases such as this.
45. I recognise, of course, that Mr B does not necessarily agree with everything the Council has told him, but this is not the same as saying the Council has failed to respond adequately to him. I also acknowledge there may have been individual occasions when there was some delay to a response from the Council, but I am not satisfied this justifies a general finding of fault about the Council’s responsiveness.
46. As the Council explained in its response to Mr B’s complaint, it did not, at any point, put restrictions on his contact, but it did warn him it may resort to this if he continued to send abusive or otherwise inappropriate messages to council staff, in accordance with its unreasonable behaviour policy. This is precisely what we would expect a council to do in this situation and not evidence of fault. I will also note the Ombudsman operates a similar policy.
47. I note Mr B says the Council did restrict his communications, by limiting him to one update per week on his case. However, I am satisfied this was simply a normal way of managing a complex case, and not a restriction introduced by the Council in response to unreasonable behaviour by Mr B, which is what he appears to have inferred.
48. I find no fault in this element of Mr B’s complaint.

That officers have behaved unprofessionally, including failing to complete actions they had agreed to

49. Mr B complains that officers have dismissed his concerns and cut off contact with him, failed to complete tasks they had agreed to, and that one officer had said he enjoyed being intentionally difficult.
50. Having reviewed the Council’s records, I am not satisfied there is any evidence to support Mr B’s allegations. I will first reiterate that officers have not ‘cut off contact’ with him at any point, albeit the Council did warn Mr B about his behaviour.
51. I am conscious Mr B’s current living situation is challenging, and that he is very frustrated by the delays he has experienced in finding a suitable new property. And, again, I acknowledge he has disagreed with the Council’s stance on several issues (which I will explore in more detail presently), which has caused his relationship with officers to become difficult at times. However, I do not consider there is any evidence that officers have behaved unprofessionally towards him – all the correspondence and notes I have seen show officers conducting themselves in the way we would expect. That Mr B does not share an officer’s view does not mean that officer has been unprofessional.
52. I note Mr B has raised one specific allegation, that an officer told him he enjoys being intentionally difficult. However, this is anecdotal evidence, and in the absence of any kind of objective, supporting information I cannot make any finding on this point.
53. I find no fault in this element of Mr B’s complaint.

The Council has provided him with inaccurate and conflicting information regarding his housing application

54. I consider this element of Mr B’s complaint essentially duplicates the previous two. As I have said, while I appreciate Mr B does not agree with the Council’s decisions and comments on various points, this does not mean it has – either purposefully or negligently – provided him with inaccurate or conflicting information. There is no point in the records I have seen which tends to support Mr B’s allegation here.
55. I find no fault in this element of Mr B’s complaint.

There has been delay by the Council in processing his application

56. I should reiterate at this point that my investigation will only consider the events from September 2023 onwards.
57. It is clear the process of identifying a new property for Mr B has taken an exceptionally long time, remaining unresolved after more than two years. The Council has explained this is, fundamentally, because of a lack of availability of suitable properties, bearing in mind Mr B’s particular needs.
58. We are conscious the demand for social housing far outstrips supply; and so, in the general sense, we do not consider the simple fact somebody has been waiting a long time to be allocated a property to be an indicator of fault by the relevant authority. This is especially so when an applicant needs a specific type or size of property, which are in particularly short supply.
59. In an earlier version of this decision, I expressed concern the Council’s records were essentially silent after September 2023, until January 2024. As the records were otherwise quite detailed and comprehensive, I inferred that this was because the Council had made little progress during this period, and I found fault for this reason.
60. In response, the Council told me it held relevant records for Mr B on two different systems – with his main housing file on the housing register database, but some of the information about the proposed extension on its DFG database. The Council said it had overlooked the latter when compiling the information I had requested it provide me.
61. The Council has now provided the missing records, and I am satisfied these demonstrate there was actually no significant gap in the Council’s work on Mr B’s case at this time – rather, in November and December 2023, there were discussions between the relevant parties about the practicalities of the plans the architect had drawn up.
62. Mr B complains the Council wasted time, by continuing to consider the proposal to extend his property, past the point where it should have been clear it was impractical. I do not, however, share this view.
63. I actually cannot see, conclusively, at what point the Council abandoned the idea of an extension. It is clear that, by January, the Council was aware it would cost significantly more than the £30,000 DFG cap, although at that time it was still exploring the possibility the county council might be able to top this up with its own contribution. The county council responded negatively to this request in early February though, and after that I cannot see any further reference to the extension proposal, so it appears this was when the Council gave up on it.
64. This means it took approximately five to six months for the Council to fully explore, and eventually dismiss, the idea of extending the property. Given the likely cost and complexity of such an undertaking, I am not persuaded this is an obviously excessive length of time, to the point where I could reasonably find fault for it.
65. This is especially so given the Council had made clear it was open to allocating Mr B an alternative property, if a suitable one became available, even while it was still considering the extension proposal. Even if the Council could have made this decision sooner, therefore, I do not consider this explains why Mr B has yet to move home.
66. I do have concern, however, about the way the Council made its decision on Mr B’s banding.
67. I will first note the Council’s original decision to place Mr B in band 4, when he joined the housing register, falls outside the time period I am investigating. My investigation therefore only covers the Council’s decision to maintain this, during the two reviews it carried out in January 2024, before eventually moving him to Band 1 in February after a third review.
68. The Council’s allocation scheme defines band 4 as being for applicants “who meet the eligibility criteria however their circumstances or behaviour is such that their priority is reduced”. The scheme goes on to note this includes applicants who are “suitably housed but wish to move”.
69. As I follow it, the Council’s reason for placing Mr B in band 4 was that he was adequately housed, because his household is entitled to a two-bedroom property under the allocation scheme, which is what they had; and because it was seeking to address the accessibility issues by extending the property, rather than moving him. I note the Council’s eventual decision to upgrade Mr B to band 1 appears to coincide with the demise of the extension proposal, which supports this interpretation.
70. However, while I appreciate the logic of this in the very narrow sense, taking everything into account it appears to be a strange decision. It was demonstrably not the case that Mr B was simply seeking to move home out of a matter of preference – in fact, the opposite is true, because (notwithstanding the accessibility issues) Mr B had made clear he likes his property and would prefer not to have to move.
71. Rather, Mr B was seeking to move principally because the current property was exacerbating his health conditions. In particular, his difficulty accessing the bedroom with his wheelchair had caused him to damage his leg. This is clearly set out in the OT report of September 2023.
72. Bands 1 and 2 of the allocation scheme are for applicants who have a ‘critical’ or ‘substantial’ need to move home. Among other criteria, this includes those whose current circumstances are contributing to a deterioration in their health conditions. This is precisely the reason the OT had recommended a move for Mr B, and so, taking the scheme as it is written, it appears either band 1 or 2 were more appropriate for a person in his situation.
73. I will reiterate here that it is not for me to make operational decisions on the Council’s behalf, and this includes deciding what band a person should be placed in. But I can find fault where the Council has not properly explained a decision. Keeping Mr B in in band 4 appears entirely at odds with the facts and the wording of the allocation scheme, and as I cannot follow the Council’s rationale for this decision, I am satisfied that applies here.
74. Despite this, I am not convinced this fault has made any material difference to Mr B’s situation. He has now been in band 1 for nearly a year, but a suitable property is still yet to be identified. It is difficult to see, therefore, what difference would have been made by moving him to band 1 a month or so earlier, after the first review.
75. I also cannot overlook the fact that, regardless of any other consideration, Mr B has been on the housing register since early 2023. I am conscious that, being in band 4 for much of this time, he was unlikely to succeed through the normal bidding process, but even before the Council moved him to band 1, it had assured Mr B it would consider making him a direct offer of a property, if a suitable one became available.
76. I understand that, following yet another recent review, the Council agreed to allow Mr B to bid for three-bedroom properties through the housing register; before this, he was only able to bid for two-bedroom properties. This is another point of Mr B’s complaint, as he felt he needed three bedrooms to manage his health needs.
77. However, the OT report made clear a two-bedroom property would be suitable for Mr B, provided his bedroom was large enough to properly access with his wheelchair. It also explained the benefits of Mr B having a three-bedroom property, but crucially, it did not say this was a requirement to meet his needs.
78. The Council was entitled to follow the recommendations of the OT report in deciding Mr B’s bedroom need, and so I am satisfied there is no fault in this. This is especially so, given the Council assessed the suitability of several three-bedroom properties anyway during this time. The fact the Council has now reversed its position on this, and is allowing Mr B to bid for three-bedroom properties, does not mean it was at fault for its original decision.
79. To conclude, I consider there was fault in the Council’s decision to maintain Mr B at band 4 on the housing register, which contradicts the allocation scheme and has no clear rationale. Given the Council reversed this decision after approximately one month, I am satisfied it had no long-term impact on his ability to find another property, but I accept it caused Mr B a degree of frustration. This is an injustice to Mr B, albeit a limited one, and I consider the Council should remedy this by writing a formal letter of apology to him.
80. Aside from this, however, I do not consider there is any fault in the way the Council has approached the question of rehousing Mr B, either in the way it considered the proposal to extend his property, or its consideration of alternative properties. I acknowledge, and in no way seek to dismiss, the frustration Mr B has suffered because of the length of time it has taken to resolve his housing situation; but, as I noted earlier, the evidence shows this is due to the complexity of his needs and the shortage of suitable properties, and not because of any failing by the Council.
81. I find fault causing injustice in this element of Mr B’s complaint.

The Council has not provided him with adequate support and guidance during the process

82. Mr B complains, in particular, the Council ignored or did not adequately address his requests to “understand the process”, or for it to be expedited due to his personal circumstances.
83. Having reviewed Mr B’s correspondence with the Council, I cannot see any point where he asked for help understanding the process, or where it should have been obvious to the Council he had significantly misunderstood anything. Again, I acknowledge the Council made decisions Mr B disagreed with – and indeed I have upheld his complaint on some of these points – but I do not consider this can reasonably be described as Mr B failing to understand the process, or that it should have been clear he needed advice which the Council failed to provide.
84. I consider I have addressed Mr B’s point about expediting his case in the previous section.
85. I find no fault in this element of Mr B’s complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

86. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council should write a formal letter of apology to Mr B, acknowledging its fault and the impact on him. 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 in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
87. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

88. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman