Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to offer her suitable accommodation and failed to honour a £250 monthly remedy agreement. Miss X also complained about a failure to make adaptions to her front door and to reimburse expenses incurred. We have concluded our investigation without making a finding of fault. The evidence does not demonstrate fault in the process when the Council made an offer of accommodation and thus its decision to cease the £250 payment arrangement. The evidence also demonstrates that the Council acted within the remit of its professional judgment in addressing the reimbursement of expenses, and the door replacement. None of these decisions indicate fault in how the Council handled the matters raised.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council have failed to offer her suitable accommodation to meet her needs, and that it has failed to honour a £250 monthly remedy agreement whilst she remained in unsuitable accommodation. Miss X also complains about expenses incurred and that the Council have failed to change her front door as it previously agreed it would. Miss X would like the Council to honour the £250 remedy agreement, and to change her front door. Miss would also like the Council to make an offer of suitable accommodation.

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 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)
3. 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. 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 liaised with Miss X and made enquiries to the Council. Miss X and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered any comments submitted before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance and legislation

Housing allocations

6. 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))

Jurisdiction

7. The scope of my investigation is limited to the events beginning after the Ombudsman issued its final decision in March 2023, up to when Miss X brought her complaint to our service in February 2024. In this decision I may refer to events outside this period due to their significance in context to this complaint, but these events have not been subject to any further investigation.

Back to top

What happened

Background

8. Miss X previously complained to the Ombudsman; the complaint was not investigated on the basis of the Ombudsman being satisfied with the steps the Council had taken to remedy injustice in the complaint. The Ombudsman issued its final decision in March 2023.
9. The Council accepted that it had moved Miss X into unsuitable accommodation, and agreed to pay her £250 a month from the date it moved her into the property, up until when it could find and offer suitable accommodation. The Council also agreed to consider any additional costs Miss X had incurred since living at the property.

Events thereafter

10. In July 2023, the Council made an offer of accommodation to Miss X for Property A. Property A is a one-bedroom wheelchair accessible property.
11. The Council’s Final Offer Letter:
• acknowledged that Miss X had requested a two-bedroom property, but it said it did not have any medical or social care evidence to support her view that she required a two-bedroom property rather than a one-bedroom property.
• set out the work proposed to be carried out on the property should Miss X accept the offer. This included adaptations to the kitchen, communal doors and internal doors following an OT assessment completed in March 2023.
• confirmed that parking in the short-term would be provided close to the property, and a disabled bay prioritised when it becomes available.
12. The Council’s Final Offer Letter also set out its reasons for why it considered the property suitable. It acknowledged its consideration of:
• The distance of the property the Council’s district
• The significance of any disruption with regard to employment, caring responsibilities and education
• Proximity and accessibility of the property to medical facilities and other support
• Proximity and accessibility of the property to local services, amenities and transport.
• Miss X’s medical history, noting that the property was medically suitable as it had wheelchair access and would be further adapted to meet her particular needs according to the OT recommendations.
• Affordability, deeming the property to be affordable for Miss X.
13. The following day, Miss X’s mother, Miss Y wrote to the Council. She set out her reasons for rejecting the Council’s offer, citing the requirement for a two bedroom property and proximity to other local residents that rendered the property unsuitable for Miss X. Miss Y also stated that a care assessment had not taken place as previously advised by the Council, stating that the Council could not reasonably make a suitable offer of accommodation without this information.
14. In mid-July 2023, the Council issued its Stage 2 complaint response to Miss X; it considered Miss X’s request for reimbursement of expenses. The Council said:
• It had considered the tenancies terms and conditions which make clear that if tenants wish to make alterations or improvements to their homes, permission must first be sought in writing from the Housing Management Service. The Council said it could not see any evidence of requests for the security items Miss X had purchased.
• It is likely that more routine alterations and improvements undertaken in relation to flooring and blinds would have been approved, and agreed to reimburse these expenses, totalling approximately £5,900. The Council proposed to reimburse half of this cost initially, as Miss X had advised she was still making payments for these items and the remainder when she moved into suitable accommodation.
• It acknowledged Miss X’s request for a metal strip to be removed from the front door but further assessment and inspection did not consider it a feasible solution, given it was considered an integral part of the door and would lead to water ingress. The Council agreed to replace the door but acknowledged that the long-term solution would be to source an alternative permanent accommodation that was suitable for Miss X.
15. Miss X wrote to the Council in mid-July 2023 advising that she did not think replacement of the door was a feasible solution, as it would lead to further remedial work at her expense. The Council reiterated that the offer to replace the door remained and offered to consider the additional expenses for remedial work.
16. Toward the end of July 2023, the Council completed a Care and Support Plan Review for Miss X.
17. In August 2023, Miss X wrote to the Council to formally reject the Council’s offer. Miss X reiterated that she required a two-bedroom property due to having 24/7 carers and to ensure her care needs were met.
18. In September 2023, the Council wrote to Miss X advising that it had considered her case again following the Care and Support Plan Review completed in July 2023. The Council said it had not been recommended that Miss X should be allocated a 2-bedroom property based on her medical needs and as such it’ll maintain its offer of a one-bedroom property.

Back to top

Analysis

19. The Council, as a local housing authority, has a responsibility to ensure that housing offers are made in accordance with its housing allocations scheme, considering factors such as the medical and accessibility needs of applicants. The Council must also adhere to its policies when making decisions about reimbursement for any reasonable expenses incurred by tenants for alterations or improvements to their accommodation.
20. In fulfilling these responsibilities, the Council must exercise professional judgment and base its decisions on the information available at the time, ensuring that its actions are reasonable and in line with relevant housing laws and policies.
21. So, it follows, my analysis will focus on whether the Council’s actions in offering accommodation, considering reimbursement requests, and addressing the front door issue were proportionate and in line with its responsibilities as a housing authority. I will assess whether the decisions made were based on a thorough review of the circumstances and whether any fault can be identified in how the Council handled these matters.

The offer made by the Council

22. The Council offered Miss X a one-bedroom wheelchair-accessible property (Property A) in July 2023, following an occupational therapist’s assessment in March 2023. The Council proposed adaptations to the kitchen, communal doors, and internal doors to meet Miss X’s accessibility needs.
23. While Miss X expressed a preference for a two-bedroom property, the Council stated that it had no medical or social care evidence to support this requirement. In making its decision, the Council considered factors such as proximity to medical facilities, amenities, and transport, affordability, and the feasibility of further adaptations to the property.
24. The Council’s professional judgment was that Property A was suitable to meet Miss X’s needs, and it completed a Care and Support Plan Review in July 2023, which did not alter its position that a one-bedroom property was sufficient. The offer of Property A was made following a thorough consideration of Miss X’s circumstances, including her accessibility requirements, proximity to services, and affordability. While Miss X may disagree with the Council’s assessment, the decision regarding the suitability of the property falls within the Council’s remit, and it is not for us to intervene or substitute our own view in place of the Council’s professional judgment. I note that the Council gave Miss X her appear rights, and if she considered the property was not suitable, she could have appealed the Council’s decision.
25. The decision to suspend the £250 monthly payments was consistent with the Council’s earlier agreement, as these payments were intended to continue only until a suitable offer of accommodation was made. Despite Miss X’s view that the property was not suitable, the Council provided its rationale.
26. In light of the above, we are not making a finding of fault regarding the Council’s offer of Property A or its decision to suspend the monthly payments. The Council’s assessment reflects its professional judgment based on the evidence available at the time, and it is not for us to intervene in the absence of fault.

Expenses

27. The Council considered Miss X’s request for reimbursement of expenses incurred in adapting her accommodation to meet her needs. This included costs for flooring, blinds, and security measures, which Miss X purchased. The Council reviewed these expenses in light of the tenancy agreement, which stipulates that tenants must seek prior written approval for any alterations or improvements to their homes.
28. After this review, the Council determined which expenses were reasonable and in line with its policies, agreeing to reimburse a portion of the costs, specifically for the flooring and blinds. These were considered standard and necessary adjustments to make the accommodation more suitable.
29. In addition to this, the Council proposed a reimbursement arrangement that took into account Miss X’s ongoing financial obligations for these items. Given this the consideration and rationale provided by the Council, I cannot identify any fault in how the expenses were assessed or reimbursed. The Council’s actions are appropriate in light of its responsibilities and the circumstances surrounding the tenancy agreement. On this point, I have not made a finding of fault.

Door

30. The Council also considered Miss X’s request regarding the front door and her concerns about the metal bar. After assessing the door, the Council determined that removing the metal bar was not a feasible solution, as it was considered an integral part of the door and could lead to water ingress. Instead of removing the bar, the Council proposed replacing the entire door. This alternative solution was offered as a way to address Miss X’s concerns while ensuring the long-term integrity and functionality of the door.
31. Additionally, the Council took into account Miss X’s concerns about incurring further expenses for additional remedial work. It acknowledged these concerns and reiterated that the offer to replace the door remained, while also expressing a willingness to consider any additional expenses related to further work. The Council’s decision to propose the door replacement, rather than removal of the metal bar, reflects its professional judgment based on its assessment of the property and Miss X’s needs and concerns. On this point, I have not made a finding of fault.

Summary

32. The Council made an offer of accommodation that it deemed suitable based on a thorough assessment of Miss X’s needs, including a further Care and Support Plan Review. While Miss X disagrees with the suitability of a 1-bedroom property in preference of a 2-bedroom property, the Council has considered the relevant information, providing its rationale as to why it considers the offer suitable. The Council also provided Miss X with her right of appeal. There is no fault in how it was made.
33. The Council reviewed Miss X’s request for reimbursement of expenses and reimbursed those it considered reasonable, in line with its responsibilities. The proposed reimbursement was proportionate to the costs incurred, and I cannot identify any fault in how the Council handled this matter.
34. The Council assessed the situation and determined that removing the metal bar was not feasible. Instead, it proposed replacing the door, a solution that was based on its professional judgment following assessment and inspection of the door. There is no fault in the Council's approach to this issue.
35. The Council’s decisions on accommodation, expenses, and the door replacement reflect its consideration and professional judgment, and the actions taken are in line with its obligations as a housing authority. I cannot criticise the Council in the absence of any fault or maladministration.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have concluded my investigation without making a finding of fault. The evidence does not demonstrate fault in the process when the Council made an offer of accommodation and thus its decision to cease the £250 payment arrangement. The evidence also demonstrates that the Council acted within the remit of its professional judgment in addressing the reimbursement of expenses, and the door replacement. None of these decisions indicate fault in how the Council handled the matters raised.
     

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman