The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council handled her housing application. We have found no fault with how the Council handled Ms X’s housing application.
The complaint
Ms X complained on behalf of her mother Ms Y.
Ms X complained the Council did not advise her that she was required to have an occupational therapist (OT) report when she first applied for housing that would be suitable for her disabled mother.
She said she first applied for housing in 2018 and provided medical information that her mother had mobility problems.
She said the Council did not tell her she needed an OT report to be prioritised for a downstairs bathroom until 2021.
She said they have been living in unsuitable accommodation for 4 years and have missed out on suitable properties during this time.
What I have investigated From the evidence I have seen, Ms X contacted the Council in May 2018 to explain her property was not suitable and that her landlord was intending to sell it.
Ms X could have complained to us in 2018 about the Council’s actions regarding the suitability of her property. I do not intend to investigate matters that took place around this time. This means I have not considered medical information that Ms X provided to the Council in 2018. If Ms X thought the Council had ignored the evidence, she could have complained at the time.
I intend to exercise my discretion and investigate matters from January 2020 onwards. This is because the issues are ongoing from this point.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered Ms X’s complaint and have spoken to her about it.
I have also considered the Council’s response to Ms X and to my enquiries.
Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my initial draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a revised draft decision.
Ms X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my revised draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Legislation Allocation Scheme 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)) 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 Council’s scheme states that some applicants with a reasonable preference may be moved to a reduced priority band. This includes where applicants in the Gold Plus, Silver Plus, Gold and Silver bands have failed to place bids.
Home Choice Plus Policy This policy states, in relation to High Medical Need or Disability under Gold Plus banding that this band is awarded following an assessment by Home Choice Plus. They consider the evidence provided by the applicant and/or the preferred medical advisor in relation to their health or disability. An applicant will normally be expected to complete a medical assessment if they have indicated that there is a medical or disability problem that is made substantially worse by their current housing. Their circumstances will be assessed by a Home Choice Plus officer based on evidence provided by the applicant and the Council will consider evidence from all appropriate medical professionals.
Homelessness policy Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018: he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. [Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5) The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Residential tenancies: Protection from eviction) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 It is important to note that the Coronavirus Act 2020 did not change the existing homelessness prevention and relief duties in Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017).
Most changes were announced by government ministers or published in non-statutory government guidance.
Private and social housing landlords could still issue Notices of Seeking Possession or Notices to Quit although guidance strongly advised them not to do so during the pandemic without a very good reason.
Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) This grant, available from Government helps towards the costs of making changes to a property to meet the needs of the resident.
What happened
Background
Ms X shared a house with her son and disabled mother, Ms Y. They moved into the property in 2018. Ms X told the Council in 2018 that the property was unsuitable as it did not have a downstairs bathroom for her disabled mother who could not manage the stairs.
Threatened with homelessness In January 2020, Ms X’s landlord issued her with a Section 21 notice. The landlord agreed that Ms X would leave the property in April 2020.
Ms X approached the Council. She said her landlord had asked her to move out as they wanted to sell the property. Ms X said her family was threatened with homelessness.
The Council liaised with the landlord about serving a valid Section 21 notice given the COVID-19 restrictions on landlords. It said, without this, the Council could not treat Ms X as threatened with homelessness.
In June 2020, once restrictions were lifted, the Council contacted the landlord and requested a valid Section 21 notice.
In December 2020, the Council received a valid section 21 notice from Ms X’s landlord. The Council awarded Ms X with Gold Plus banding as it accepted, she was threatened with homelessness.
Council placed Ms X’s application in reduced preference as she had not placed any bids since April 2018. Ms X explained she had not placed any bids as no suitable properties became available as the Council had given her incorrect information.
Ms X told the Council that because the section 21 notice did not expire until July 2021, she would start placing bids in April 2021. Ms X told the Council that she was confident that 2-3 months would be enough time to bid and find a house. The Council reduced Ms X’s banding. The Gold Plus banding was reinstated in June 2021 when the case was reallocated to a new case officer.
Medical priority In January 2020, Ms X approached the Council about the need for her family to move. She stated that any new property needed a downstairs bathroom for her disabled mother.
The Council sent Ms X a Health and Disability form to fill in for Ms Y. Ms X completed the form. She stated that Ms Y has difficulty climbing stairs and in their current property, she needed to go upstairs to access the bathroom but hasn’t for years.
In April 2020, the Council decided that the Ms X’s current property did not have an adverse impact on Ms Y’s health and did not award her medical priority. It acknowledged the accommodation affected Ms Y’s welfare as she could not access washing facilities. The Council moved the family to Gold banding for exceptional circumstances on welfare grounds.
In 2021, the Council advised Ms X that she could involve an OT to assess Ms Y’s medical needs in relation to the housing application. The OT assessment took place in August 2021. The OT concluded that Ms Y needed access to ground floor toilet/bathing and sleeping facilities and that the property is wheelchair accessible.
In October 2021, the Council received a copy of the OT report. It decided Ms Y qualified for medical priority. The family was awarded Gold Plus banding.
In its response to Ms X’s complaint, the Council said it could have requested OT input into the application process in February 2020, but it was not required to. The Council’s notes stated the current property was not affecting Ms Y’s medical condition. It did say it was affecting her welfare and prioritised her on that basis. The Council have admitted this was not clear.
Update During the course of my investigation, Ms X received keys for a suitable house.
As permitted by the Home Choice Plus Allocations Policy, the Council agreed to direct match Ms X as an urgent case with reasonable preference.
An OT assessed the property for Ms X and Ms Y’s needs. The OT confirmed that adaptations (including the installation of a ground floor shower) could be completed using DFG.
My findings
Threatened with homelessness The Council could not treat Ms X and her family as threatened with homelessness until it had a valid section 21 notice from the landlord. This was delayed due to the COVID-19 landlord restrictions. The Council was liaising with the landlord during this time. Once restrictions were lifted, and it had the notice, the Council awarded Ms X’s application a Gold Plus banding.
The Council was not at fault for not awarding the homelessness priority sooner. Its decision was in line with national and local policy.
Medical priority The Council acknowledged that it could have advised Ms X that she could have requested an OT report for her mother in January 2020 when she filled in the medical and welfare forms. An OT report is not required but could have supported MS X’s application. The Council said it has now reminded officers to be aware of medical/disability factors and to advise the applicant accordingly.
Ms X said she had missed out on suitable properties since January 2020 because the Council failed to involve an OT. The Council accepted that suitable properties should have included those with potential to adapt to include a downstairs bathroom. It said the Council could only determine properties’ adaptation potential by having an OT visit.
Although Ms Y qualified for medical priority in October 2021, this does not automatically mean she would have qualified in January 2020.
There is no evidence that Ms X would have found a suitable property even if an OT had been involved in January 2020.
I have fallen short of finding fault with the Council. There is no requirement for applicants to provide an OT report. The Council considered the health and disability form submitted by Ms X when reaching its decision.
Revised draft decision Subject to further comments by Ms X and the Council, I intend to complete my investigation. I have found no fault with how the Council considered Ms X’s housing application.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I have not considered the complaint about matters arising in 2018. Ms X could have complained to us sooner.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman