Council left blind resident in unsuitable accommodation for 18 months longer than necessary: Ombudsman

Following an investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, the council agreed to apologise, make a direct offer of its next suitable available property, and pay a financial remedy.

The resident, Mr X, complained about how Harrow handled his housing application made in March 2023, stating that the council:

• did not properly consider whether he was homeless because his housing was no longer reasonable for him to occupy due to his disability;
• delayed in considering his application and awarding him the correct priority on its housing register;
• failed to find him suitable permanent housing after wrongly claiming he was not the highest bidder, or that properties were not suitable for his needs; and
• did not properly respond to his complaint about these issues, because it directed him to the wrong Ombudsman service when it issued its final response.

The resident had been living in private rental accommodation with his wife and children but following a worsening in his sight, made a housing application to the council in March 2023 as he had fallen on the stairs several times in that property, injuring himself, and he needed a property where he did not have to climb stairs.

His claimed needs were supported by an Occupational Therapist (OT) after Harrow arranged an assessment later that year, with the family’s landlord at the time unwilling to make the necessary changes to their property.

Harrow decided that the resident should be in ‘Band A’ for medical reasons, with a priority date of 20 June 2023, but after he requested a review, the council amended his priority date to March 2023 and put him in Band A+.

The council accepted fault for not considering its homelessness duties and offered £250 for the delay. In October 2024, the council said it had accepted the main housing duty and placed the family in temporary accommodation.

---

Related Articles

Resident sends bailiffs into head office of major social landlord over unpaid compensation

Council to improve handling of Disabled Facilities Grant applications after Ombudsman investigation found “significant backlog” of cases

Shelter urges Government to name implementation date for Renters’ Rights Bill as data shows nearly 1,000 no-fault evictions every month

Failures by social landlord left mother unable to close windows for three years despite risk to young children: Housing Ombudsman

Woman given suspended sentence after altering documents in bid to gain social tenancy

---

The Ombudsman found fault in the delays in handling of both the application and the resident’s request for a review.

The council should have assessed the application within 28 days, instead of seven months. It also delayed the review by eleven weeks.

The Ombudsman decided that two of these properties Mr X bid on may have been suitable for the resident during the council’s delays, but due to the council’s errors he may have missed out on them.

The first of these was rejected for reasons not properly supported by records, while the resident likely would have had higher priority for the second if not for the council’s delays. There was no fault found in Harrow’s handling of the remaining properties he bid on after March 2024.

Despite the council’s policy stating Band A+ applicants should be housed within six months, the family had waited over 10 months longer than this.

The council claimed its policy no longer reflected current practice due to housing shortages, but since the published policy was still in effect, failing to follow it was considered fault.

Regarding homelessness duties, the Ombudsman found multiple failings.

From March 2023, the council had sufficient information to consider the resident potentially homeless due to the unsuitability of his home but it failed to act until July 2024, after he complained.

Even then, it mishandled communication about emergency accommodation, offering vague information over the phone instead of following formal procedures so it did not accept its main housing duty until October 2024 – more than a year late.

Finally, under the Equality Act 2010, Harrow failed in its duty to consider Mr X’s disability properly.

It did not assess whether it was reasonable for him to remain in his home, nor did it assess housing suitability based on his actual mobility level (Mobility 3), instead applying standards intended for wheelchair users.

The Ombudsman therefore decided that the financial remedy should be £350 per month (totalling £6,300), alongside a suitable apology.

It also called on the council to provide updates to the Ombudsman on its backlog of housing priority decisions and review decisions.

Harrow will also issue a reminder to its housing and homelessness staff about its duties under the Equality Act 2010, and issue a reminder to its staff who respond to complaints about housing and homelessness, about the difference between the Housing Ombudsman and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, and where to direct complainants.

In a statement the London Borough of Harrow said: “We accept the findings of the Ombudsman and have apologised to Mr X (the resident) for the distress caused by the handling of his homelessness and housing register applications.

“While we strive to meet the highest standards for our residents, on this occasion we did not meet those expectations.”

It added: “We are reviewing our housing register application process to ensure lessons are learned from these delays and to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future.

“Mr X has now been offered suitable temporary accommodation, and we remain in contact with him to ensure all outstanding issues are fully resolved.”

Harry Rodd